Download PDF | (Fortress 21) David Nicolle - Crusader Castles in the Holy Land 1097–1192-Osprey Publishing (2004).
67 Pages
Introduction
Crusader castles and the fortifications of cities that the Crusaders once occupied conjure up images of great fortresses dominating the landscape, or walled cities defying the wrath of surrounding Islamic states. In reality, fortifications that were taken over, repaired, extended or newly built by the Crusaders who erupted into the Middle East at the close of the 11th century existed in a great variety of sizes and styles. Furthermore, most of the towering castles whose photographs illustrate histories of the Crusades actually survive in a 13th-century or even a post-Crusader Islamic form. Fortifications dating from the 12th century, when the Crusader States were still a significant military force, are harder to find. Some exist as fragments, walls or towers embedded within later castles or city walls. Others are little more than shattered ruins or foundations in areas where later powers felt little need to maintain such fortifications. The remaining examples have all been altered by later occupants.
The First Crusaders, who captured Jerusalem in 1099, came to the Middle East with their own established ideas about military architecture. For most of them a castle was a fortification and a residence, though several variations had already emerged. The 10th and 11th centuries had seen the development of sophisticated European timber fortifications, even in areas where good building stone was available. This may have reflected a lack of sufficient skilled masons, but it is important to note that, within Europe, wooden fortresses were not necessarily weaker than those of stone.
Although the Carolingian Empire of Western and Central Europe had not been noted for its military architecture, it had built ‘royal forts’ at strategic points. These had much in common with late-Roman forts, though some also included relatively tall and sturdy towers. Partly as a result of the Scandinavian Viking, Islamic Saracen and Magyar Hungarian raids during the 9th and 10th centuries, the imperial or royal ban on members of the nobility constructing fortresses without authorisation gradually waned. At the same time the crumbling Roman curtain-walls of many towns were repaired.
Small rural fortifications, built in increasing numbers, became characteristic of 11th-century France, and it was here that the motte and bailey castle emerged as a distinctive new form. However, during the 11th century, formidable stone castles and towers or keeps also appeared in some regions which had until then been dominated by earth and timber defences, Further south, stone and brick had remained the at traditional materials when constructing ANTIOCH aN, fortifications. Here there is evidence that some ST. SIMEON,” ‘ existing stone halls were strengthened and We heightened to become prototypes of the tall, freestanding donjon tower or keep, which became characteristic of much 12th-century Western European non-urban fortification. At the same time there was increasing interest in using naturally defensible sites such as rocky outcrops. Fortified churches similarly became a feature of southern France, an area from which so many participants of the First Crusade would come. Normans would play a very prominent role in the First Crusade, and Normandy and the Anglo-Norman Kingdom of England were in some respects ahead of the rest of France in matters of fortification (see Fortress 13 and 18, Norman Stone Castles). In fact the Normans were particularly closely associated with the new motte and bailey style of earth and timber castle.
Men from Germany and other parts of what was then simply called The Empire also played a significant role, but slightly different traditions and new styles of fortification had been developing in their homelands during the 10th and 11th centuries. From the late-10th century onwards a carefully planned system of provincial fortresses had been erected to control newly conquered Slay-inhabited territories along the eastern frontiers. Yet another series of developments could be seen south of the Alps, in Italy. Here cities like Rome had tried to maintain the impressive fortifications inherited from the Roman Empire. Meanwhile the military architecture that emerged in several parts of the country during the 11th century was often technologically more sophisticated than that seen north of the Alps, probably because of the close cultural, political, economic and military proximity of the Byzantine and Islamic worlds, where the art of fortificiation was even more advanced.
The First Crusaders may have marched east with their own varied traditions of military architecture, but when they reached the Byzantine Empire and then the Islamic states of the Middle East they found themselves facing some of the most massive, sophisticated and expensive fortifications outside China. At this stage the Western European Crusaders were on the offensive, and very rarely felt the need to erect strong fortifications. However, as soon as they had carved out what are now known as the Crusader States, they began building and were influenced by the military architecture they saw around them.
Design and development
In the 19th and early-20th centuries, historians of the Crusades believed that Crusader military architecture was most strongly influenced by that of the Byzantine Empire. Shortly before World War I, a student from Oxford University conducted field research in the Asiatic provinces of the Ottoman Empire: he then returned to write a thesis in which he argued that the designers of Crusader castles largely based their ideas upon what was currently being built in Western Europe. This student’s name was T.E. Lawrence, soon to be better known as Lawrence of Arabia. His thesis eventually influenced the next generation of historians of Crusader architecture, but neither they nor Lawrence seriously considered the influence of Islamic traditions of fortification. This idea developed more recently and today it is widely accepted that the military architecture of the Crusader States reflected a broad array of influences, in addition to the inventiveness of those who actually designed it.
The late Nikita Elisséeff, who worked for much of his life in Damascus, maintained that Byzantine forms of military architecture in northern Syria were soon added to the Western European design concepts of the early Crusaders. Within a few decades these newcomers were also learning from their Muslim neighbours, especially in making greater use of topographical features to strengthen a fortified site. More recently the Israeli scholar Ronnie Ellenblum highlighted the fact that Crusader castles were built to deal with specific military situations or threats, and that their designers drew upon what seemed most suitable in the circumstances.
In the early-12th century, each of the newly established Crusader states found itself in a different situation. The Principality of Antioch, for example, was adjacent to the Armenian states of Cilicia, which evolved into the Kingdom of Cilician or Lesser Armenia. Here fortifications ranged from tiny hilltop outposts to major garrison fortresses, while Armenian architects favoured half-round towers that protruded from a curtain-wall far enough to permit archers to enfilade the enemy. Such design ideas influenced castle building in the Principality of Antioch. Furthermore Antioch attracted few Western European settlers and hence relied to a greater extent on military elites of Armenian, Greek and Syrian origin who may also have influenced the design of local fortifications. The mountainous character of the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli clearly encouraged experimental and daring design ideas, though the castles themselves ranged from very simple, almost rustic structures to huge hilltop fortresses. Meanwhile building techniques ranged from a typically Byzantine use of small masonry an bricks within one structure, to mixtures of Byzantine, Armenian, Western European and soon also Syrian-Islamic methods of both cutting and shaping stones — each of which had their own distinctive. Sometimes variations in ways of mixing cement and mortar also reflected different cultural influences.
Crusader castle building quickly grew more sophisticated. For example the building of concentric castles first took place in the late-1160s, and although the idea had been around for some time, concentric castles certainly appeared in the Crusader States before they did in Western Europe. On the other hand, most early structures remained relatively small while the vast sums of money and effort expended on larger and more elaborate fortifications were characteristic of the 13th rather than the 12th century.
One ‘supposed’ characteristic of Crusader castles was a lack of timber in their construction, with this being attributed to a lack of suitable timber in the areas where they were built. However, abundant excellent timber was available in neighbouring Cilician Armenia. Although the deforestation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem may have been well advanced by the time of the Crusades, suitable large baulks of timber were available in the mountains of Lebanon and on Mount Carmel. The situation was better in the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch and the northern regions of the County of Edessa. Furthermore Western Europeans probably enjoyed a_ technological advantage over their Middle Eastern foes, not only in their tradition of timber architecture but in their logistical ability to transport large timbers over long distances.
Consequently it is hardly surprising to find that in reality early Crusader castles made considerable use of wood. Timber roofs, floors, balconies, stairs, ladders and non-defensive storage buildings, barracks or stables were commonplace. Wood was also used for internal fittings, though these do not survive. Other evidence suggests that the newly settled Crusaders rapidly adopted local architectural traditions by being sparing in their use of timber, even in castles erected in relatively well-wooded regions. Of course, it was not simply the availability of wood that mattered: it was the availability of suitably large pieces of timber. Recent archaeological excavations at the unfinished castle of Vadum Jacob also show that timber was used for scaffolding and in other construction processes, though the builders did take advantage of alternative techniques where possible — for example the use of temporary earthen ramps to bring uilding materials to the top of a wall as it was being built.
During the 12th century, the experience of local builders skilled in the construction of substantial stone vaulting, broad arches, domes and other complex load-bearing structures became available to the conquerors: as a result, indigenous Syro-Palestinian architectural influence became more apparent in many aspects of Crusader architecture. In military architecture, the most significant developments were the placing of entrances beneath and through towers rather than through curtain-walls, the construction of defensive towers that protruded further from a wall to permit enfilading fire, and the use of a major tower or keep not as a final redoubt but as the fulcrum of an overall defensive scheme. Some of these concepts were rare or almost unknown in Western European fortification at the time. A further increase in the size and projection of towers, reflecting an increasing use of heavy counterweight stone-throwing mangonels would be a feature of the early-13th century. On the other hand the use of heavily embossed masonry as a means of making such missiles strike no more than a glancing blow was soon seen.
The inability of several Crusader fortifications to withstand enemy sieges became apparent in the 1160s and 1170s. Previously Islamic armies had relied on traditional methods of siege warfare, with direct assaults, blockades, mining and the limited use of relatively light stone-throwing artillery: although Islamic armies had access to superior siege technologies, a limited number of men skilled in heavy carpentry seems to have precluded the greater use of sophisticated artillery. In the 1160s, however, things began to change and a process was set in motion that would eventually result in the Mamluk Sultanate’s staggering number of huge timber-framed stone-throwing machines, which reached their peak in the late-13th century. Meanwhile the military setbacks suffered by the Crusader States resulted in the construction of bigger, stronger and notably more expensive castles. The owners of these new castles were not necessarily any richer, however; a fact which contributed to the rising military orders being asked to take over several castles because they were better able to garrison, maintain and defend them.
There was reduced reliance on a donjon and a greater emphasis on an enceinte or curtain-wall strengthened by towers. Yet there was also a tendency to increase the number of existing defensive features whilst shying away from incorporating new ones. Hence walls, towers, and fosse ditches were multiplied while the natural defensive features of a site were enhanced by excavation and what could almost be called ‘landscaping’. Walls became thicker and the originally Islamic concept of the talus (an additional sloping front) along the lower parts of walls and towers was adopted. Ancient stone columns were added to walls as horizontal bonding, tying together the carefully laid outer and inner layers through a core filled with rubble and mortar. The number of embrasures for archery or observation was increased and single or superimposed horizontal defensive galleries, again with loopholes, became more common. Various forms of projecting machicolation appeared, which permitted arrows to be shot at, or missiles to be dropped on, enemies beneath. Both Byzantine and Islamic fortifications had, of course, made use of machicolations long before the Crusaders arrived. Meanwhile towers began to get bigger and more closely spaced, though the massive projecting artillery bastion towers of the early-13th century had not yet appeared.
The types of Crusader fortification
There were several basic forms of what can loosely be called Crusader fortifications. However, there was considerable overlap between them and no clear line of development even within these forms. The simplest was the freeor almost freestanding tower, an idea brought to the Middle East by the Crusaders. Single towers were found in many areas, most commonly in the more settled regions. The second was the castrum or enclosure within a fortified wall, usually rectangular with corner towers: these too were more common in settled areas. The double-castrum was a development of this simple
castrum and could be seen as the earliest manifestation of the concentric castle: these tended to be built in more vulnerable frontier regions. Thirdly, the Crusaders used hilltop and spur-castles, the latter being sited upon a promontory attached to a hill by a narrow neck of land that could be cut off by a fosse or ditch. These were also common in unsettled areas. A fourth and characteristically Western Europe form of fortification has recently been added to this list: the motte and bailey castle. Originally of earth and timber, it was not previously thought to have been used in the Middle East.
A more sophisticated typology has been suggested by Adrian Boas who subdivides the towers into isolated towers, towers with outworks, and donjons as parts of larger castles. Castra are subdivided into simple castra, ‘castrum and keep’ castles that combined a castrum with a main tower or keep, and ‘defended’ castra with additional outworks. Double castra or early concentric castles, hilltop and spur-castles remained separate categories.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق