Even in their most secure period in the mid-twelfth century, the Frankish territories were constantly exposed to the danger of assault. Defensive structures are consequently the type of buildings that most characterize the period, and even non-military buildings including churches, urban houses and farms often display elements of a defensive nature. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Franks built numerous castles in the East. Rather than seeing them as attesting to the strength of the Franks, we should perhaps regard the castles as the most tangible evidence of the instability of their holdings in the East. On a more positive note, they can also be seen as evidence of the resourcefulness of the Franks, and they are a most eloquent testimony to Frankish innovation and inventiveness.
Castles played an important role in defence, though there is some disagreement as to exactly what this role was. R. C.Smail put to rest the old idea that they formed a defensive line along the borders of the kingdom (Smail 1987:204-20). Rather than the massive castle walls, it was the combined use of castle and field army that allowed the Franks to retain their hold on the East. Their defensive strategy centred around the idea that their safest option was to avoid direct battle whenever possible. When it could not be avoided the castles served to house troops and supplies.
Defence was not the castle’s only function; it also played an important role in internal administration. As in the West, a strong castle was a means for a landowner to demonstrate and maintain his overlordship. The Frankish countryside, particularly that of the kingdom of Jerusalem, is dotted with small castles which certainly played no part in frontier defence, were not placed alongside important roads, and were too small to have housed a large garrison. Their main function appears to have been as fortified administrative centres.
Castles also served as places of refuge in troubled times and their very existence gave a sense of security to the surrounding villages. Settlements grew up in the shadow of castles, looking to them for protection. When Fulk built the castle of Blanchegarde in 1142 villages grew up around it and, according to William of Tyre, the whole area became populated and much safer (William of Tyre 1986:20.19).
The programme of castle building continued throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. There are about a hundred castles in the kingdom of Jerusalem alone. In discussing them we should first define precisely what constitutes a castle. If we include all fortified buildings we must discuss city fortifications, some churches and monasteries and even farms and some urban houses. There are scholars who advocate a broad definition but in a discussion of this nature it is more practical to confine ourselves to independent, fortified structures which were built primarily to fulfil one or a number of military functions.
Amongst the many by-products of Frankish rule in the East, the achievements in the art of castle building rank high. Wherever the sources of their design lay, and this is a subject that has been under debate since the late nineteenth century (Oman 1898; Lawrence 1988), Frankish castles advanced within a very short period from the most basic, one might say primitive, types to highly complex and remarkably inventive buildings displaying the highest understanding of military architecture. The Franks exhibited a proficiency at borrowing and adapting from others, and a genius at inventing entirely new types. The first of these qualities is demonstrated by the employment of two simple designs: the fortified tower, which had its source in the towers of western Europe, and the castrum or enclosure castle, a Roman invention which had become common on the eastern borders of the Byzantine Empire and was later adopted by the Muslims. The second quality is best seen in the evolution of a completely new type of castle, the double castrum. The Franks also utilized and developed other castle types: hilltop castles and spur castles. These developments took place in the twelfth century, and with each type the Franks were responding to a particular need. Towers were built in order to establish regional administration. The castra (at least those around Ascalon) were intended to serve as lookouts against small-scale incursions. Double castra and hilltop and spur castles, placed in sensitive border positions, served as outposts for large garrisons and held supplies for an army in the field, but they were probably intended mainly as a show of Frankish strength.
There is a considerable distance between the simple keep-tower and the superior and often complex spur castle, and there is no apparent direct line of development. Although it was often the case, castles of a sophisticated design did not always replace the more basic types. Square or rectangular towers, while mostly dating to the first half of the twelfth century, were still being built in the thirteenth century, for example, at Qal’at Jiddin. Castra were built for most of the twelfth century, although none seem to post-date Hattin. The complex spur castles and castles with concentric lines of defence date mainly from the later twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but Kerak was built as early as 1142 (although it is hard to tell at present what form it took at that early stage). While constantly improving their art, the Franks used the type of castle most appropriate in a given situation. The two factors determining castle design were the intended function of the castle and the topography of the site.
Typology of the Crusader castle
Any attempt to categorize Frankish castles cannot be entirely satisfactory because of the complexity of castle design, which T. E.Lawrence aptly described as ‘a series of exceptions to some undiscoverable rule’ (Lawrence 1988:37). Although many castles seem to fall easily enough into one or other classification (keeps, enclosure castles (castra) and spur castles) some do not, either because they belong to none of these types or because they conform to more than one category. In a general overview of the kind presented here, a basic typology, with all its shortcomings, is indispensable. With the vast amount of discussion that has taken place and in the light of recent fieldwork, it is possible to present a fairly detailed typology. There are four main types: towers, enclosure castles (castra), hilltop castles and spur castles. These can be subdivided into seven categories: (1) towers (isolated towers, towers with outworks, castle keeps which form part of a larger castle); (2) castra (enclosure castles); (3) ‘castrum and keep’ castles (castles combining the castrum with the keep); (4) defended castra (enclosure castles with outworks); (5) double castra (concentric castles); (6) spur castles; (7) hilltop castles (Figure 4.1).
Towers
The Franks built their first towers before they even set foot in the Holy Land. In 1097 and 1098, during the siege of Antioch, the Crusaders constructed three towers with the aim of preventing Turkish sorties. One, outside St Paul’s Gate, was named Malregard. A second one, named Mahomerie’s Tower, was on a mound at the western end of the bridge across the Orontes, opposite the Bridge Gate. A third stronghold was constructed opposite St George’s Gate in the south. Named Tancred’s Tower, it made use of an existing fort and monastery. These towers were examples of the most basic type of castle: the Frankish tower keep. In the first half of the twelfth century many such towers were constructed throughout the Frankish-held territories. These were built primarily by landowning nobles as centres of regional administration. This explains why these towers are concentrated not in border areas but rather in the interior, particularly in fertile areas where agricultural activity was intense. In the West at the time of the First Crusade, the Normans built fortified towers in order to establish their rule over the districts they held. These were of the simple ‘motte-and-bailey’ type, a wooden tower on an artificial hill with a bailey surrounded by a moat and with wooden palisades. In the East the Franks dispensed with the earthen mound or motte and replaced wood with stone.1 These castles generally appear to have had some sort of outworks enclosing a courtyard with the tower at the centre.2
The strength of the tower lay in its massive walls often three or four metres wide, with few and narrow openings. When under attack they could offer only passive defence. The chief disadvantage of these castles lay in the fact that they could be very easily placed under siege, although Lawrence perhaps exaggerated
Figure 4.1 Comparative chart of Crusader castles
When he suggested that this only required two men, one each side of the door (Lawrence 1988:23). They certainly played only a very minor part in offensives as they could not house more than a limited garrison. However, they could accommodate in some comfort an overseer and a few knights. Some of these towers apparently contained a hall where court sessions could be held, and most of them had spacious vaults where agricultural produce, taken as taxes and tithes from the villages in the region, could be stored. In times of danger the local Frankish population would take refuge within their walls.
Towers in the Latin East seem never to have been more than two storeys high, the only exceptions being perhaps the western tower at Qal’at Jiddin and the tower at Jaba’ (Gabaa) (Pringle 1994c:339).3 Their height was limited because of the weight of the stone vaulting. Some of the towers were quite small: the tower of Maldoim on the road to the Dead Sea measures a mere 9.3x8.5 m and that at nearby Beit Jubr at-Tahtani 9.5x6.6-8.1 m (Pringle 1994b:159-165). Quite a few towers consisted of a single barrel vault or two parallel barrel vaults on each of the two floors. Pringle has listed some seventy-five towers in the kingdom of Jerusalem, some of which were undefended and some with outworks (Pringle 1994c). Some of the larger examples had four, six or even nine connected groin vaults supported on one or two piers. Occasionally the ground floor was barrel-vaulted and the upper floor had groin vaults. This was the case in the Red Tower. At Qal’at Jiddin there were two barrel vaults on the ground floor and possibly nine groin vaults carried on four piers on the first floor. Stairs in the castles were built either in the thickness of the wall or (as at Beit She’an) against an interior wall, but in some cases there was an external wooden staircase.4 Lighting was usually via arrow slits which, when they also served defensive functions, were usually on the first-floor level. As at Beit She’an and al-Burj (Qal’at Tantura), there was sometimes a slit machicolation or a portcullis above the door. Floors were of packed lime, flagstones or stone slabs. There was often a cistern under the ground floor (Beit She’an, Montfort, Yoqne’am, Gibelet). Occasionally latrines were built into the walls (Kolossi, Qal’at Jiddin).
The finest towers are in the north: these include Chastel Rouge and Chastel Blanc in the county of Tripoli. Qal’at Yahmur (Chastel Rouge) is a typical twelfth-century Frankish tower situated on a plain south of Tortosa in the county of Tripoli. It was probably built in the first half of the twelfth century but is almost totally ignored in historical sources until 1177-78, when it was given to the Hospitallers by Raymond III of Tripoli. Like other castles in the region, Qal’at Yahmur remained in Frankish hands after the Battle of Hattin and for most of the thirteenth century until it was captured by Qala’un in 1289. The keep measures 16.2x14.1 m and the walls are 1.8-2.2 m thick. The ground floor, which was entered from the east, consists of four connected groin vaults supported on a 2x2 m central pier. The first floor was originally divided into two levels by a wooden mezzanine floor 3.5 m above the floor level. There is a small door in the east wall of the ground-floor level and a larger one in the west wall of the first floor. A pair of corbels remains from machicolation above the ground-floor door. The first floor was probably reached by an external wooden staircase which has not survived. There were also stairs from the first floor to the second-floor level built in the thickness of the north wall. This unusual arrangement meant that there was no direct communication from inside the ground floor to the first-floor level. The first floor is also roofed by four groin vaults, separated by transverse arches and supported on an octagonal pier. Light reached the first-floor level through several arrow slits in the south wall. There are broader windows in the east and west walls. The outworks consist of walls 1.9 m thick enclosing an area of 37x42 m. Small towers in the north-west and south-east corners are perhaps later additions.
Safita (Chastel Blanc), located on the top of a steep hill in the north of the county of Tripoli, is one of the finest Frankish towers (Plate 4.1). Guarding the landward approaches of Tartus, it was built early in the twelfth century, probably before 1112. It was damaged by an earthquake in 1170 and sacked the following year by Nur al-Din. Subsequently Safita was held by the Templars, who carried out a major reconstruction of the castle. It was not attacked by Saladin after the Battle of Hattin but was damaged by earthquake for a second time in the early thirteenth century (Kennedy 1994:138).
The impressive form of the keep of Safita, towering above the village of Burj Safita dates from its reconstruction, carried out perhaps shortly after the earthquake or by Louis IX, who is mentioned in an Arab source as having strengthened the castle. In 1271 it fell to Baybars. Although this is difficult to see today because of the modern structures surrounding the castle, in the Crusader period Safita was enclosed within two outworks: an outer polygonal ring-wall and an inner wall of uncertain shape. The outer defences included at least two towers and several vaulted chambers, including a large first-floor hall, rib-vaulted in the Gothic style. The tower keep itself was unusual in design, being elongated whereas most towers are square or nearly square.5 The ground floor contains a high, barrel-vaulted chapel dedicated to St Michael. The chapel is illuminated by arrow slits and has an apse to the east. A staircase constructed in the thickness of the wall leads to the upper floor, which is a rather splendid groin-vaulted hall, perhaps a dormitory, its roof supported by three massive piers. The masonry of the interior is remarkably fine although lacking in ornamentation. Rather than being merely a tower, Safita can be defined as an eglise-donjon, a church-keep.
In the kingdom of Cyprus there is a fine keep at Kolossi, about 9.5 km west of Limassol on the Limassol—Paphos road. A castle existed at Frankish le Colos (or Colosso) since at least the reign of Hugh I (1205-18), when it was in the possession of the Hospitallers. After the loss of Akko in 1291 the Hospitallers intended to establish a new centre at Kolossi. Their subsequent move to Rhodes changed this decision but Kolossi served as the seat of the Grand Master of Cyprus and became the centre of a wealthy Hospitaller estate. After damage by the Genoese raids in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, the keep was
Plate 4.1 Chastel Blanc from the west (photograph by Jonathan Phillips)
Largely restored by the Grand Commander of Cyprus, Louis de Magnac (c. 145068) and perhaps by the Venetians, who took possession after 1488.
The tower is three storeys (21 m) high including the basement. It measures 16x16 m with walls 2.7 m thick. There are two doors to the south, one leading to the basement and one on the ground-floor level which is now reached by an arched staircase. High above them is a machicoulis carried on six brackets. Above the eastern door is the royal coat of arms of Cyprus as well as the shields of the two Grand Masters and that of the Grand Commander. On each face of the building are two windows. Inside, beneath the staircase which leads to the upper levels, is a cistern which is fed by a conduit from the roof. The ground floor was probably used for storage while the second storey contained what was probably a kitchen as well as the castle hall. The kitchen has a large open fireplace and a spiral staircase in the south-east corner. This gives access to the upper storey which may have served as the residence of the Grand Master. On this level there are two rooms; both have large hooded fireplaces decorated with shields with a fleur-de-lis. They have windows with window seats and one has a latrine built into the thickness of the wall. The staircase also gives access to the roof. The remains of the surrounding courtyard include various outbuildings and to the east is a sugar mill and refinery.
Excavations have recently been carried out at two keeps in the kingdom of Jerusalem: Tour Rouge (Burj al-Ahmar) and Beit She’an. Tour Rouge is situated in the Sharon plain west of the town of Tulkarm. It was excavated in 1983 by a team of archaeologists from the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem headed by Pringle (1986b). The tower was built some time during the first half of the twelfth century, possibly by the lord of Caesarea or by the Benedictines of St Mary Latin, to whom one of the lords granted the adjacent village and lands (Pringle 1986b:127). It was subsequently held by the Templars, probably from around 1191, and from 1248 by the Hospitallers. In 1265 it fell to Baybars. The castle was a two-storey structure measuring 19.7x15.5 m, apparently without a moat but with a wall enclosing an area measuring approximately 60x60 m. The tower had walls 2.2 m thick. The ground floor consisted of two parallel barrel-vaulted chambers with a flagstone floor. The upper storey had a hall of six connected groin-vaulted bays supported on two piers. Light entered the keep via narrow arrow-slit-like embrasure windows.
In the early Islamic period, probably around the ninth century, most of the population of Beit She’an moved from the area below the ancient mound to a new location on a hilltop to the east of the amphitheatre. There had been a settlement in this area since the Byzantine period but it now became the centre of the medieval town. Beit She’an was captured by Tancred in 1099 and was held by the Franks until 1183 when Saladin sacked it, though it probably remained in Frankish hands until after the Battle of Hattin in 1187. Saladin refortified the town in 1192. During the Fifth Crusade Beit She’an was sacked, and in 1240 it was returned to the Franks. It was lost again, for the last time, in 1260.
Although only a few traces of Frankish construction have been uncovered in the area surrounding the castle, Frankish Beit She’an was probably situated in the immediate vicinity, around the tower. Topographically the castle is situated at the highest point of this area, higher than the ancient mound. The tower is a two-storey square structure measuring 17.3x17.3 m with walls over 3 m thick (Plate 4.2). The door is in the northern wall. The ground floor consists of two adjacent barrel vaults. Stairs built against the western wall led to the upper storey, which has not survived. The keep is surrounded by a courtyard with barrel-vaulted chambers lining the enclosure wall. The enclosure wall has corner towers and a gate to the east, in line with the door of the keep. This outer gate was
Plate 4.2 Beit She’an: the Frankish keep (courtesy of Jon Seligman, Israel Antiquities Authority, photograph by Gabi Laron)
Reached via a drawbridge across the moat. Archaeological and literary evidence indicates that the moat was filled with water, an exception in the East, where moats were typically dry. The only other exceptions to this rule are at Caesarea and ‘Atlit, where sea water filled the moats. When excavations cleared the moat at Beit She’an two indications of its having been water-filled were noticed: a layer of travertine (lime) coated the scarp and counterscarp from the base to the top as well as the pillars supporting the drawbridge; and on the floor of the moat, under later fill, a silt layer was uncovered which contained large numbers of shells of freshwater snails (Seligman 1995:39). In one of those fortunate cases where the written sources support the archaeological finds, a fourteenthcentury text by the historian Ibn al-Furat describes the fortress at Beit She’an as ‘a small modern citadel built by the Franks, entirely surrounded by water except where one can reach it by a bridge’ (Lyons et al. 1971:46).
Other towers worth noting are Saffuriya (Tsipori), a 15 m square keep with walls 3.75 m thick, which incorporates antique spolia in its construction, Mirabel (Migdal Afeq), a tower probably built before 1152 which measures 13x13.9 m and has walls 3 m thick and outworks including an outer enclosure wall with a talus and towers, and the Templar road tower of Maldoim (Ma’ale Adumin) on the road between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. This last is unremarkable in itself, being a small two-storey tower measuring a mere 9.3x8.5 m, but it has additional vaults and an impressive rock-cut moat.
Plate 4.3 Saone: keep and fortifications in the south-east (photograph by Jonathan Phillips)
Towers were not only built to stand on their own but were often employed as an integral part of a larger castle. I am not referring here to the salient towers built along castle walls but to the main tower of the castle, the keep or donjon, a massive building which was intended to serve as a final refuge if the enemy breached the castle walls. Such castle-keeps should be considered as a sub-type. Being merely one feature in a larger castle, their function was somewhat different from that of the isolated keep. Amongst the examples of such towers are the great round tower of Margat, 20 m in diameter and 24 m high, and the keep of Montfort, which is 25 m long and has an apsidal wall to the east suggesting that it was perhaps another eglise-donjon.6 A more regular keep, but one which is remarkable for its size and preservation, is that of the castle of Saone (Sahyun) in the principality of Antioch (Plate 4.3). It forms part of the defences of a great twelfth-century spur castle. Some time before 1132 the Franks expanded and enhanced a Byzantine castle by the addition of towers and curtain walls around the spur and a deep moat to the east. The keep forms part of the eastern defences of the fortress directly over the rock-cut face of the moat. It is a large, two-storey, square tower measuring 24.5x24.5 m, with groin vaults on both levels supported by central piers. It is 22 m high with massive walls 4.4-5.4 m thick. Stairs constructed into the thickness of the wall lead from the ground to the first floor and from there to the crenellated roof, which has survived almost intact.
The castra (enclosure castles)
In answer to specific defensive/offensive needs, the Franks adopted a type of fortress that was in common use in earlier periods: the enclosure castle or castrum. This was generally a larger castle than the tower but it too was of a basically simple design: in this case a quadrangular area was enclosed by curtain walls. The castrum had corner towers and occasionally interval towers placed at regular distances along the walls. Its advantages were that on the one hand the simple design allowed for easy and quick construction, and on the other that the towers and long stretches of curtain walls with numerous firing positions allowed this type of castle to play an active defensive role. The castrum was not new to the region. In Greek tetrapyrgion and Latin quadriburgium, the four-cornered fort developed out of the Roman fortified camps and in the late Roman and Byzantine periods the design was used for frontier forts, notably those in North Africa. Castra built in the late Roman and Byzantine periods in the region include Tamara in the eastern Negev which dates from the third century AD, and a fourth-century castrum at Ain Boqek on the west bank of the Dead Sea. The use of this type of fortress continued into the early Islamic period. Under the Umayyads the desert palaces of Khirbat al-Mafjar in Jericho and Khirbat al-Minya by the Sea of Galilee were built in the castrum form, as were coastal forts at Ashdod Yam and north of Caesarea at modern Habonim. Both these castra were probably used by the Franks from the moment they fell into their hands. Habonim or Frankish Cafarlet (Kafr Lam) is a small castle situated 8 km south of ‘Atlit. It was held at times by the Hospitallers and by the Templars. It is a fairly well-preserved trapezoidal structure measuring 57/42.5 E-Wx63 m N-S, and built of sandstone ashlars. It has round towers at the corners and additional towers on either side of the gate to the south. The walls, 1.5-2.3 m thick, were strengthened by external buttresses. This castle has never been properly examined but a plan has recently been published (Pringle 1997: Figure 31). Ashdod Yam, Frankish Castellum Beroart has round corner towers with solid bases and a gate to the east and west, each flanked by two towers.7
In the past the use of castra by the Franks has been seen by historians like Charles Oman and others as evidence that Frankish fortifications owed little to the West and were mainly influenced by Byzantine military architecture. This idea was challenged first by Lawrence and later by Smail and others. In the case of the castra the more direct influence of Muslim architecture has to be considered. There was little direct contact between the Franks and North Africa and the local Umayyad forts are more likely to have served as prototypes (Pringle, introduction in Lawrence 1988: xxxvi).
The Frankish use of the castrum plan is known both from surviving examples and from written sources. From 1136 on we hear of the use of the castrum design in castles built by the Franks. William of Tyre describes the castra which were built around Fatimid Ascalon (William of Tyre 1986: 14.22, 15.24-5, 17.12, 20. 19). At Darum the king built a small, square fort with towers at each corner, one of which was more massive and better fortified than the others. Yavne (Ibelin) was a castle with four towers, Blanchegarde (Tell es-Safi) had four towers of equal height and Beit Govrin (Beit Govrin) was more complex, with an outer wall with many towers and a moat. At Gaza there was a similar castrum. Of these castra, only Beit Govrin has been excavated.8 It has proved to be of a more complex design than was once believed (see p. 106). Other Frankish castra survive at Mi’iliya and possibly at Yalu and Hunin. Smail and Benvenisti include Vadum Jacob (Chastellet) in this category. Benvenisti includes Belvoir (Kochav Hayarden) and calls the castrum ‘the commonest type among Crusader fortresses in the country’ (Benvenisti 1970:281). However, Vadum Jacob, now under excavation, was not a castrum and Belvoir is a more developed type of castle (see pp. 106-8).
The castrum of Coliath, south-east of Chastel Rouge in the county of Tripoli, was built after the Franks captured the site in 1118. In 1127 Count Pons of Tripoli gave it to the Hospitallers. They held it, except for a period in the 1140s when it was in the hands of the Assassins (an extremist Shi’ite sect in Jabal Ansariyah, Lebanon) until 1207-8, when it fell to al-Malik al-Adil and was dismantled. Some time later Coliath was recovered by the Franks and was rebuilt, and by 1243 it was in the possession of the Templars. It fell to Baybars in 1266 and was partly dismantled.
Coliath is a classic castrum, a rectangular structure measuring 63x56 m with corner towers and additional towers at the mid-point of each wall except to the south, where the gate is situated between two small turrets. With its corner towers, one taller than the others, it is reminiscent of William of Tyre’s description of Darum. A barrel-vaulted undercroft ran the length of the northern wall and possibly the southern wall as well.
In western Galilee, 22 km north-west of Akko, another castrum stands at the centre of the village of Mi’iliya in the royal domain, Frankish Castellum Regis. The castle was first mentioned in 1160. At about that time it came into the possession of a knight named Henri de Milly. In the 1170s it was held by Joscelin de Courtenay and perhaps rebuilt at that time; it was also known as Castellum Novum (Pringle 1997:71). In 1220 Mi’iliya was sold to the German Teutonic Order, which held it until it fell to Baybars in 1268-71.
At the high point of the town is a rectangular castrum with square corner towers. The northern side with its towers survives to its full original height. The corner towers on the south-east and south-west were somewhat larger than the others measuring 9x9 m. The tower on the north-west stands on a slightly different alignment. Little is known of the interior of the castle and it has never been excavated. A survey carried out by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem produced a plan of this castle, which shows that the interior was divided north to south by a wall that perhaps supported a barrel-vaulted range along the east side, with a doorway near the south.
On the western side of the Hula Valley is Qal’at Hunin (Chastel Neuf). This castle, which overlooks the road from Damascus to the coast, was built in 1105-6. Part of the fortress was sold to the Hospitallers in 1157 and sold back in the same year. Ten years later it was taken by Nur al-Din and he probably razed it. In 1178 the Franks recovered Hunin and Humphrey II of Toron repaired it. After the Battle of Hattin it was lost again and was subsequently dismantled by al-Malik al-Mu’azzam ‘Isa, the ruler of Damascus, in 1212. The treaty of 1240 returned the castle to the Franks, who held it until 1266 when it fell to Baybars. He rebuilt the castle in 1267 and much of the surviving medieval work probably dates from his repair. In 1994 limited excavations were carried out by the Israel Antiquities Authority in and adjacent to the eighteenth-century gatehouse (Shaked 1997:17-18). Traces of two twelfth-century towers were found, placed 20 m apart with a curtain wall between them. They belong to the first phase of the castle destroyed by Nur al-Din. The towers measure 13x13 m and have walls 3 m thick. They were built of ashlars with marginal dressing and they may form the eastern side of a castrum. At a later stage, after the destruction by Nur al-Din, the complex was enlarged to form a much larger castle (about 86x65 m) with a moat (14-16 m wide) but no towers, in the view of the excavator because it was never completed. The existing round, non-projecting towers date from the eighteenth century, when the walls were reconstructed and the present gatehouse built.
The sea castle at Sidon was built on a small offshore island 40 m from the northern shore of the town in 1227, when the armies of Frederick II were camped in the city. It was enlarged by the Templars from 1260 onwards. Various versions of its plan have been drawn up. Ben-Dov has given the castle the form of a castrum by adding an enclosure wall to the north and corner towers to the north-east and north-west (Ben-Dov 1986:113-20). The other versions do not attempt to extend the outer defences to the north. The gateway to the inner part of the castle was situated to the east. Within is a large building with a hall consisting of sixteen connected groin-vaulted bays supported on seven piers. The entrance to this hall was at the centre of its south wall. A few smaller rooms were situated to its south within the outer walls, and on the south-east a massive structure containing a kitchen and various service rooms. A staircase built into the wall of the hall led to the upper floor. Here on the south-east side there was a small chapel with massive walls about 5 m thick and with arrow-slits in its northern and southern walls. It was decorated with alternating courses of light and dark stone (ablaq), more typical of Mamluk than Frankish stonework. The outer fortification consists of a thick curtain wall (c. 5 m) which survives to the south and east, with arrow-slits placed about 5 m apart. At the corners were round towers of which two, on the south-east and south-west, survive. As at Ascalon, Caesarea and Beit She’an, pillars were laid laterally in the wall to strengthen it.
The fortress gate was on the south facing the land. It consisted of a broad outer arch and a narrow, slightly lower inner arch with a slit for a portcullis between the two. Directly above the outer arch was a large machicoulis supported on four stone brackets. Beneath each bracket is a carved figure, a lion on the outer brackets and on the inner ones a human figure carrying a stick-like object. The gate has been partly reconstructed from stones recovered from the sea. A bridge leading to the gate was supported on massive piers 4.5 m apart. They were rectangular in shape but triangular on their eastern side to withstand the blows of the waves. Between them were stone arches, with the exception of the last pier before the gate of the castle. To cross the final distance a wooden drawbridge would have been lowered by means of chains which extended down from the machicoulis above the gate. The drawbridge was supported on a smaller stone pier.
There is a thirteenth-century castrum in the small harbour town of Kyrenia on the north coast of Cyprus. The castle was originally constructed at the end of the twelfth or early in the thirteenth century.9 It was captured after a protracted siege by Frederick II in 1232, underwent various improvements and was extensively rebuilt by the Venetians in the sixteenth century.
The castle is rectangular with corner towers. The rampart walk and crenellation in the northern curtain wall have survived remarkably intact and there are some early remains in the east and in the interior, including barrel-vaulted basement galleries. Much of the rest of this castle is later, mainly Venetian, including a large circular bastion in the north-west corner and all of the defences in the south.
The citadel of Famagusta was built in the reign of Henry II (1285-1324) and completed by 1310. It is rectangular with square corner towers. Rib-vaulted halls surround the central courtyard; the six bays in the north are the best preserved. To the west, four bays form a large hall with six arrow-slits and a gate. There was originally tracery in the windows, but on the whole the hall shows little evidence of decorative elements. To the south are five rib-vaults. Three of the towers survive in part, though the tower to the north-east has been destroyed. The largest surviving tower is to the north-west adjoining the hall. Enlart writes that ‘although it may have been the keep, it is more likely that the keep was at the other end of the hall in the south-west, commanding the entrance to the port’ (Enlart 1987:451).
‘Castrum and keep ’ castles
It has been suggested that the Franks were limited to building towers at first, since they did not know how to fortify a curtain wall, and that their building of castra can be considered a major advance. However, in eleventh-century Europe wooden and occasionally stone castles were built with enclosure walls. What may perhaps be seen as a true advance was what Smail called ‘the marriage of turris and castrum’ (Smail 1987:228), such as the structure which William of Tyre described at Darum. One of the best surviving examples of this combination is at Gibelet (Jubayl), ancient Byblos in the county of Tripoli. It was built shortly after the town was captured by Raymond of St Gilles in 1102. The early twelfth-century date of this castle suggests that the Franks did not take very long to become experts and innovators in the art of castle building. In 1187 Saladin acquired the town as ransom for Hugh III of Gibelet. It was recovered by the Franks in 1197 and held by them until 1298.
The entire enclosure of Gibelet Castle measures 45x40 m. It has quadrangular projecting corner towers and an additional tower on the eastern side of the gate to the north. The gate is within the city walls and the fortress extends outside the walls and is surrounded by a moat. In the courtyard stands the keep measuring 22x18 m. It was two storeys high with a firstfloor entrance, a not uncommon feature which added to the security of the building.
Defended castra (enclosure castles with outworks)
Concentric lines of defences were aimed at making it more difficult for the besieger to gain access to the inner ward. A number of castra are contained within outworks that may have been intended to protect a settlement which had developed outside the castle walls, perhaps as the result of some new threat. The castles built around Ascalon, Yavne (Ibelin), Tell es-Safi (Blanchegarde), Beit Govrin (Beit Govrin) and Deir al-Balah (Darum) are examples of this. Darum, which was built as a small castrum, had by 1191 become a much larger castle with outworks including seventeen towers. This was probably in response to the attack by Saladin in 1170. Blanchegarde appears to have undergone a similar process, as did Beit Govrin. Blanchegarde, also known as Alba Specula or Alba Custodia, was built by King Fulk in 1142.10 It was situated on the highest part of Tell es-Safi, 215 m above sea level, overlooking a vast area stretching from Ramla and Latrun in the north, the Hebron hills and Judean foothills in the east, the northern Negev in the south, and across the plain to the coast from Yavne to Gaza. The white chalk cliffs below the castle to the west gave the site its Frankish name.
Blanchegarde fell to Saladin in 1187 after the Battle of Hattin. He dismantled the castle in 1191. The following year it was recovered by Richard I but shortly thereafter it was handed over to the Muslims in fulfilment of the terms of a treaty between Richard and Saladin. It was recovered in 1241 but held only until 1244. William of Tyre’s description of Blanchegarde is of a typical castrum with a central courtyard and four projecting corner towers. Two of the towers can still be seen on the surface, and the hillocks formed by the remains of the other two are visible. In the mid-nineteenth century Rey drew a plan of the castle on which he showed a central keep. The small size of the enclosed area (less than 16x16 m) makes the existence of an internal keep unlikely.11 However, the existence of the outworks which are also shown on Rey’s plan is better founded and is supported by the excavations of Bliss and Macalister in 1899-1900, which revealed the ruins of a gate-tower to the north of the castrum.
Beit Govrin was built in 1134 and granted to the Hospitallers in 1136. After the Battle of Hattin it was lost to the Franks but returned to them between 1240 and 1244. Recent excavations (1993-97) have exposed a castrum with two outer lines of defence.12 The castrum covers an area of 46x 48 m. It has towers on three corners, and to the south is a church which shares the southern wall of the fortress and is connected to it by a vaulted passage. The castrum has a barrel-vaulted gate 5.5 m high in the west. Two-thirds of the area of the interior (28. 5x48 m) was covered by groin vaults 13 m high supported on piers; at the centre there was an open courtyard. A single arrow-slit was found in the east wall. Most of the outer fortifications of the castle surrounding the castrum have been exposed. They enclose a large area containing within it the Roman amphitheatre and probably the remains of the town of Beit Govrin, which has not yet been found. These defences appear to form a double line, the inner one with vaults supported on piers. Both outer lines of fortification have a number of salient towers.
Double castra (concentric castra)
From the inherited design of the castrum and under the influence of Byzantine double-line fortifications, such as the fifth-century Theodosian walls of Constantinople, the Franks derived a more sophisticated type of castle. This was the double or concentric castrum, found in its most perfect state at Belvoir overlooking the Jordan Valley and at Saranda Kolones in Cyprus.13 Indeed as far as we know at present, these are the only examples of this type of castle found in the East. This was a castrum within a castrum, with the inner building almost identical to the outer one. Belvoir (Kochav Hayarden, Kaukab al-Hawa) is the earliest example of this type. It is situated north of Bet She’an, overlooking to the east the River Jordan and the Damascus— Jerusalem road. To its south is the road from Beit She’an to Akko. In the Second Temple period there had been a Jewish town called Kochava at this site. A castle was probably first built here in 1138-40. It was purchased by the Hospitallers in 1168 and it was they who built this remarkable building. Belvoir represents a landmark in castle design and became the prototype of some of the finest castles built in the West.
Construction throughout the castle was of basalt ashlars and fieldstone excavated from the moat and limestone ashlars possibly brought from nearby Mount Gilboa (Plate 4.4). The two lines of defence consisted of an inner castrum —a vaulted structure with corner towers and a large gate-tower enclosing an inner bailey of 20x20 m and an outer bailey (50x50 m), surrounded by an outer castrum with corner and interval towers. The lower part of the tower walls were built with a slight incline to make scaling difficult. Some of the towers had internal staircases leading to posterns at their base within the moat through fortified doors. On three sides of the outer ward, to the south, the west and the north, the rock-cut moat (10 m deep and 20 m wide) strengthened the defences. On the east side facing the cliff above the Jordan Valley the Hospitallers built a large barbican and a steep talus.
The inner castrum contained a refectory, storerooms and a kitchen. The excavators found ovens in the kitchen. A staircase from the inner bailey led to
Plate 4.4 Belvoir Castle: the inner ward (photograph by the author)
The upper floor, where there were service rooms, living quarters and a chapel with two rib-vaulted bays which were decorated with sculpture. In the courtyard were cisterns that could hold 100 cubic metres of water. Water was carried through an aqueduct from the spring in the south to a larger vaulted cistern in the eastern outer ward. This cistern had a capacity of approximately 650 cubic metres of water and supplied the adjacent bathhouse. A forge and smithy was located in the north-eastern wing and was identified by the discovery of iron tools, nails and horseshoes.
Shortly after its construction Saladin’s troops tried unsuccessfully to destroy Belvoir. The strength of the double fortifications proved extremely effective, as they did later after the Battle of Hattin, when the castle held out against a Muslim siege for a year and a half, falling only on 5 January 1189 when the Ayyubids successfully undermined the barbican. The Franks surrendered although the attackers had not managed to penetrate the inner fortress. Saladin demolished the church and repaired the walls. Between 1217 and 1219 Belvoir was partly dismantled by al-Mu’azzam ‘Isa, who apparently destroyed the upper storey of the inner castrum. The fortress was thereafter abandoned but in 1241 it was returned to the Hospitallers. They probably did not manage to carry out any restoration before they finally abandoned it around 1263 (Benvenisti 1970:297). Early in the nineteenth century Bedouin squatters settled in the ruins and a village developed there, named Kaukab al-Hawa. It was abandoned in 1948. In the 1960s trial excavations were carried out and in 1966 Belvoir was cleared and partly restored.14
A second double castrum known as Saranda Kolones is situated at Paphos in the kingdom of Cyprus (Plate 4.5). It is only about half the size of Belvoir, about 60 square metres (about the size of the inner castrum at Belvoir), but it is an equally fine example of this type of castle. It was built in 1200, possibly by the Hospitallers, and was destroyed by earthquake in 1222. Saranda Kolones differs from Belvoir in the use of round towers on the outer castrum corners and triangular towers at the mid-points, whereas all the towers at Belvoir are rectangular. The inner castrum has rectangular corner towers but a semicircular gatehouse. In addition, rather than the outer castrum having vaults, it is merely a curtain wall with towers. As at Belvoir, Saranda Kolones has its accommodation in the smaller inner castrum. There are stables, a bakery, a forge and a mill-room. The upper floor holds a chapel and several latrines that empty out via piers to the sewers below. There were also latrines on the ground floor constructed in the piers which supported the vaults.
At the end of the thirteenth century the concentric castrum design was adopted by Edward I, who employed it in the castles he constructed to secure his conquests in North Wales. Beaumaris Castle in Anglesey, which was built in 1295, is one of the finest examples of this type.
We should perhaps ask why such a remarkable castle design, which proved to be extremely effective in 1187-89, is represented in the kingdom of Jerusalem by only a single example. The answer may lie in the fact that it was built a mere ten years before the Battle of Hattin which resulted in the loss of most of the Frankish territory, and control of the limited area which was regained in the Third Crusade did not require new castles.
Spur castles
Spur castles made use of a particular topographical feature, a high spur cut off from the surrounding countryside by two river valleys. These castles were located in some of the more vulnerable regions under Frankish rule, particularly the hilly regions to the north and east. They exploited the steep cliffs on two sides of the spur as a natural defence which needed only the addition of a curtain wall and an occasional tower. The third and most vulnerable side that faced the
Plate 4.5 Saranda Kolones Castle (photograph by the author)
Ridge was strengthened by the construction of more extensive defences: parallel walls, towers and a moat. The great spur castles often controlled major roads and valley passes. They could house a large garrison and contain supplies necessary for a major campaign. At the same time, like smaller castles, they served as administrative centres.
The castle of Montfort or Starkenberg (Qal’at Qurein) is situated about 19 km north-east of Akko, 300 m above sea level on the southern bank above Wadi Qurein. It is 180 m above the wadi. It was built in 1226-27 after the site came into the hands of the Teutonic Knights, who possessed extensive property in the region including Chateau du Roi (Mi’iliya) and Judin (Yehi’am). Montfort became the administrative centre, treasury and repository for their archives. It was destroyed by Baybars in 1271.
The keep to the east (see p. 100) was surrounded by a ditch 20 m wide and 11 m deep. A second moat was excavated by the builders about 50 m to the east, isolating the keep from the spur to the east and also from the rest of the castle to the west. It was constructed over a large cistern. To the west was a groin-vaulted hall and a large building with rib-vaults supported on a central octagonal column. Part of an outer line of defensive wall survives to the west and north.
Kerak of Moab was built on the ruins of a Roman fortress by Pagan le Bouteiller, lord of Montreal and Oultrejordain, in 1142 (William of Tyre 1986: 15.21). It was obtained by Reynald of Chatillon through marriage. Kerak
Withstood Ayyubid sieges in 1183 and 1184. After the Battle of Hattin in 1187 and the death of Reynald at the hands of Saladin, the castle held out for over a year until it fell to Saladin’s brother, al-Malik al-Adil in November 1188. He refortified the castle in 1192 and in 1264 Baybars strengthened the site and improved the fosse. Most of the defences visible today date to these postFrankish phases.
The castle is situated on a spur on the southern side of the town of Kerak. There is a broad rock-cut ditch to its south and a narrower but very deep ditch to the north. The entrance of the castle was in the north. According to Deschamps there are two phases of Frankish construction, an inner wall to which was added an outer wall with five square towers. An impressive stone-lined talus was constructed against the southern and south-eastern walls. Other than the study of Deschamps, no serious work has been done on this important castle.
Beaufort or Belfort (Qal’at al-Shaqif Arnun) is situated in southern Lebanon 300 m above the Litani river commanding the southern approaches to the Beqa’ Valley. It was built after the site was captured by King Fulk in 1139, at first with a keep of about twelve square metres and subsequently with more extensive fortifications taking advantage of the spur formation. These included a vaulted hall and the broad enceinte with round towers to the south. It was besieged for a year after the Battle of Hattin, only falling when the garrison was starved into submission. The Ayyubids strengthened the fortifications, particularly to the north and south. Beaufort was restored to the Franks following the terms of the treaty of 1240 and was held by the Templars until 1268. Improvements carried out in the thirteenth century included the addition of the chapel and strengthening of the outworks to the south. In 1268 the castle fell to Baybars.
Beaufort is an impressive structure despite the considerable damage it has suffered in recent years. The eastern side of the castle was unapproachable because of the steep cliff. Its main line of defence was concentrated at the most vulnerable approach to the west. Here, as to the south, a moat and curtain wall follow the edge of the rock and the large keep is situated near the central point where the wall bends.
A castle which is not built on a spur but which follows the same principle of utilizing natural defences on all sides but one is ‘Atlit Castle (Figure 4.2). Between 1217 and 1218 the Templars dismantled a small twelfth-century fort known as Le Destroit (Districtum, Petra Incisa) situated on the sand-stone ridge just east of the small promontory at ‘Atlit and replaced it with one of the largest castles of the kingdom of Jerusalem. ‘Atlit Castle or Chateau Pelerin, so named because it was built largely with the aid of pilgrim manpower, withstood attack by al-Mu’azzam ‘Isa in 1220. In the following years a town grew up on its eastern side. In 1265 the town fell to Baybars and was destroyed. The castle, however, stood its ground and remained in Frankish hands until August 1291, after the fall of Akko.
Earthquakes and dismantling of much of the stonework by Ibrahim Pasha in the early nineteenth century have taken their toll on the ruins, but ‘Atlit is still an
Figure 4.2 Plan of ‘Atlit Castle and faubourg (after Johns 1997)
Impressive site. Between 1931 and 1936 C. N.Johns excavated the castle and faubourg, exposing the main lines of defence to the east (Johns 1997). It was in this area that the Franks concentrated their efforts. The north, west and south had the natural protection of the sea. A moat was excavated the entire length of the eastern side, 27 metres wide with two gates on the counterscarp. There were two lines of massive walls on this side. The outer bailey wall was 200 m long, 6.5 m thick and 16 m high. It had three towers positioned so that archers on the inner eastern line of defence could fire their arrows between the towers and over the outer wall and moat. The towers had gates that gave indirect access to the outer
Plate 4.6 Crac des Chevaliers from the south-west (photograph by Jonathan Phillips)
Bailey. There were two firing levels in this wall. At a height of 3 m above the ground was a passageway (chemin de ronde) leading to casemates with embrasures, each of which could hold four archers. At the top of the wall was the parapet from which there was an additional line of fire. Beyond the outer bailey was the huge inner bailey wall, over 30 m high and 12 m thick, with two large towers. The northern tower still stands to a height of 34 m. The towers were about 27 m long and contained various chambers. In the northern tower the ground-floor level was barrel-vaulted and above it was a monumental Gothic, rib-vaulted hall. Around the remaining sides of the castle were two concentric rows of vaults including some broad halls in the south-west, a polygonal church and a fine rib-vaulted hall which may have been the refectory.
Crac des Cheveliers was the finest of the Hospitaller castles (Plate 4.6). Lawrence, with understandable enthusiasm, called it ‘perhaps the best preserved and most wholly admirable castle in the world’ (Lawrence 1988: 77). Crac des Chevaliers guarded the north-eastern flank of Tripoli and controlled access to the Orontes and the Syrian interior. It originated as a Kurdish military outpost built by the emir of Homs in 1031 and was known as Hosn al-Akrad (Castle of the Kurds). Nothing of the architecture of this stage is known to have survived. It was captured by the Franks in 1110 and acquired by the Hospitallers in 1142 from Raymond II of Tripoli. Earthquakes struck the castle in 1157 and again in 1170, when it was damaged to such an extent that according to one source not a single wall remained standing. The inner part of the castle post-dates the latter earthquake. A third earthquake damaged the castle in 1202, and in the thirteenth century the three great towers to the west, the talus and the outer fortifications were constructed.
Crac remained in Frankish hands after 1187. Because of its strength Saladin did not try to take the castle in 1188. At its peak in the thirteenth century Crac had a garrison of 2,000 knights. It eventually fell to Baybars in 1271 after a siege that lasted just over a month.
Crac was built at the northern end of a spur. Its twelfth-century form and size is similar to that of Vadum Jacob (see pp. 118-20) which was built in 1178-79, probably at the same time that Crac was being built. At this stage it had a few towers and consisted of barrel-vaulted halls running adjacent to the outer wall, a large hall in the courtyard, a chapel to the north-east and a large gate in the centre of the eastern wall. In the thirteenth century the castle took on its present remarkable form. The outer wall with semi-circular towers was built to contain the entire castle and a lower gate was constructed to the east. By this means Crac became an enormous concentric castle.
Another remarkable castle of the Hospitallers is Margat (al-Marqab) situated in the south of the principality of Antioch, north of Tortosa, south of Latakia and west of Assassin country (Plate 4.7). A small castle apparently existed here in the mid-eleventh century. It was captured in 1117 by Robert of Antioch, who made it over as a fiefdom to the Mansoer family. It was damaged by earthquake in 1157, 1170 and 1186, the latter apparently making its possession too great a burden on its owners, who in the same year sold it to the Hospitallers. Like Crac des Chevaliers, it served as an administrative centre. The knights built a tower on the coast, now known as Burj as-Sabi, with a wall connecting it to the castle so that they could exact tariffs from travellers using the coastal road.
As with Crac des Chevaliers, Saladin did not try to take Margat in 1188 because it was too strong. It withstood a siege in 1204-5 by the Sultan of Aleppo, al-Malik al-Zahir, and remained in Frankish hands until 1285, when it was taken by Qala’un. It subsequently became an important Mamluk stronghold in Syria. Margat is somewhat smaller and rather less imposing than Crac des Chevaliers, but it is nonetheless amongst the finest examples of Frankish military architecture. It was constructed using the local basalt stone, which is more difficult to cut and as a consequence the workmanship is not as fine as at Crac, but the contrast between the basalt and the lime-stone which was used for architectural details is some compensation for this.15 Lawrence described the features of Margat as ‘typical of the best period of French architecture’; he seems to have been referring to the remarkable round keep, the finest of its type in the Latin East (Lawrence 1988:88).
The weak part of this spur castle was to the south and it was on this side that the defences were concentrated, including the citadel, a rock-cut reservoir and the great round donjon. To the north below the citadel and enceinte is the moat. To the west is a large open area surrounded by the wall with semicircular towers. To the south on the outer enceinte below the donjon is another large round
K
§
&
O
D
O
A
O
O
O
¦>
?
O"
Cd
U
S;
Tower. Entrance to the castle is via stairs over the ditch to a bent-angle gateway in the middle of the west wall. The gate was two storeys high and had a portcullis. The citadel has an outer gate to the west and a long passage giving indirect access through an inner gate to the courtyard. As at Crac, large, barrel-vaulted chambers surround the courtyard. There is also a large, vaulted hall near the keep. The chapel to the north of the keep served as the cathedral for the bishop of a nearby town of Valenia (Banias), who in times of insecurity took refuge in the castle. It is a fine example of French Romanesque architecture.
Lawrence considered Saone Castle (Sahyun) as ‘probably the finest example of military architecture in Syria’. It is situated on one of the lesser routes from Latakia to Aleppo. A Byzantine castle, probably built around 975, occupied this narrow spur. It consisted of a citadel at a high point in the centre of the ridge, with a ditch to the west and probably another to the east. Around the citadel were several parallel lines of outworks. The castle was expanded and greatly improved by the Franks in the twelfth century, mainly by the defences to the east. It fell to Saladin in 1188 and was never regained by the Franks. As it was not added to under post-Frankish rule, Saone remains a largely twelfth-century Crusader castle. Saladin arrived in July 1188, surrounded the castle with his army and set up six mangonels to bombard the walls. A breach was made, probably in the north-east corner, and the Muslims climbed the walls and entered the courtyard. The defenders took flight and sought refuge in the keep. An agreement was reached with Saladin and they were allowed to leave after paying a ransom. The walls of Saone were partially repaired and it survived remarkably well until the nineteenth century, when Ibrahim Pasha bombarded it during his campaign in Syria.
The easiest approach to this castle was from the east. In the twelfth century the Franks enlarged the eastern section of the 128 m long moat to a width of 18 m and a depth of 26 m. Since it was too broad to carry a bridge, a stone pinnacle was left to support the drawbridge. The gatehouse was built to the west of the ditch with two slightly projecting rounded towers. South of the gate is the great keep (see pp. 100-1), situated at the half-way point of the moat with its entrance to the west. There is also a large vaulted hall, and further south are three round towers. To the south are three rectangular towers. A second gateway is in the third tower.
Amongst the interesting details of military design is the rampart walk (chemin de ronde) around the curtain walls. This is not an uncommon feature in castles, but at Saone there is no access from the towers to the walk. They are cut off from it and the only means of reaching the walk, except from the gatehouse, is via stairs from the courtyard to each section. This would seem to have been an inconvenience to the defenders during attack but, as Smail noted, it was probably an intentional design to enable the isolation of an enemy who had gained a tower or a section of the wall (Smail 1987:241).16 This was a feature of Byzantine military architecture adapted by the Franks at Saone but it does not appear to have been adopted in later castles, not even the large castles of the military orders. A seco
World History
