Archaeological Evidence for the Mamluk Sieges and Dismantling of Montfort: a Preliminary Discussion

CHAPTER 4 Archaeological Evidence for the Mamluk Sieges and Dismantling of Montfort: A Preliminary Discussion

Adrian J. Boas

Once the Saracens got possession of the Tower of Written sources are very uninformative, containing David, they immediately put their miners into it no information on the extent of the effort, the nature and had the whole fortress taken down and razed of the attack or any physical effects it may have had to the ground. The size of the enormous stones on the castle. astonished everyone. The masonry was so strongly With the second siege in June 1271, Baybars was rid- mortared with lime, sand and cement, and the ing the wave of recent successes at Crac des Chevaliers stones so firmly bound with lead and huge bands (Ḥiṣn al-Akrād) and Gibelacar (ʿAkkār) and the attack of cramp-iron which fastened the sections together, on Montfort is easier to comprehend as a mopping-up that tearing it down was very difficult and needed action. This siege probably resulted in considerable great force. damage to the castle before it capitulated, although The Rothelin continuation of William of once again the sources, while they do describe the Tyre1 stages of the siege—the taking of the Rabaḍ and the Bāshūra—make no comment on the actual damage caused other than a general reference to the sapping In May, 1266 Sultan Baybars sent two of his emirs, Badr of walls. According to Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, the undermin- al-Dīn al-Aydamrī and Badr al-Dīn Baysarī, to besiege ing of a wall (the Sūr—probably the southern wall Montfort Castle.2 His attack came in the wake of his of the western wing) was carried out and Baybars successes the previous year at Caesarea, the faubourg promised the masons one hundred dirhams for each of Château Pèlerin, Caiphas (Haifa) and Arsur (Arsūf/ stone pulled out until the tenth stone.5 Apollonia),3 but the question arises: what might have According to Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, following the motivated him to besiege what, from many aspects, occupation of Montfort, the Teutonic garrison was was a strategically unimportant castle? As noted above (Chapter 3), it has been suggested that this siege together with simultaneous attacks on other Frankish sites including Tripoli, Acre and Tyre may have been 5 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, 1976, pp. 385–86. This comment may simply part of a diversionary ploy, aimed at distracting and be a literary topos, and references to sums paid to soldiers or occupying the Franks elsewhere while the sultan masons involved in the filling in of moats and the removal of made a move against the important Templar fortress stones occur in other contemporary accounts, both Western of Safed. Indeed, Safed was attacked in early June and Muslim. For example, during the siege of Jerusalem in 1099 Raymond of Toulouse offered his soldiers a denarius for every and fell on 23 July.4 Marshall’s suggestion is a persua- three large stones carried to fill the ditch below the city wall sive one, particularly when we consider that the large (Gesta Francorum: 38, p. 91), and at Baybars’ siege of Safed in Mamluk army, riding on the wave of a string of suc- 1266, the men who removed the first ten stones from the cita- cesses, apparently failed to take this castle. But it raises del wall were offered 100 dinars each (Ibn al-Furat, 1971, vol. 1, another question: how much of an effort was made p. 92). Unlike Raymond’s denarius, the 1,000 dirhems offered by at Montfort, if indeed Baybars’ aim was diversionary? Baybars for removing ten stones seems unrealistic, but it does at least suggest that the Sūr was strongly built and worthy of a high payment, and this is indeed the case in the southern wall of 1 Description of the dismantling of the citadel of Jerusalem in the western wing. Although the huge drafted ashlars employed 1239. See Rothelin, 2005, p. 40. on the northern side of this building (similar to those found in 2 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, 1976, p. 253. the keep) are not found here, the southern wall is very thick (up 3 Caesarea, Château Pèlerin and Haifa fell to Baybars in March, to c. 5 m) and was constructed from fairly large, roughly worked 1265, Arsur in April. fieldstones held together with an extremely strong gypsum- 4 See Marshall, 1992, p. 203. based cement (Plate 4.1).

Plate 4.1 The southern wall of the western building (the Sūr). photograph by Adrian Boas.

escorted to Acre.6 Baybars then returned and set about fell to them would have imposed a considerable and thoroughly dismantling the castle. This demolition unnecessary burden on the treasury. Only those cas- falls in with the Mamluk policy instigated by Baybars tles which might play a role in the Mamluk governing and employed in many coastal and some inland fortifi- apparatus that replaced Frankish rule were retained. cations. It is not difficult to understand the motivation The decision to dismantle Montfort, while leaving behind the considerable effort put into dismantling certain other castles intact, is one which is perhaps not fortifications. On the one hand, the Mamluks’ military hard to appreciate considering its isolated and non- situation was very different from that of the Franks. strategic location. They did not suffer the demographic weakness that Although, as al-Yūnīnī records, the dismantling had perhaps been the principal impetus behind the of the castle continued for only twelve days,8 the construction by the latter of tens of fortified outposts, army made a thorough job of it before they departed. and by the 1260s the threat of a renewed Crusade to the Observation of the ruins today, which because of their Holy Land had declined considerably.7 In addition, isolation probably remain much as they were left in the expense of maintaining the numerous castles which 1271, show this to have been a major undertaking, in which the Mamluks expended perhaps no less effort than they had in taking the castle. The result was 6 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, 1976, p. 386. For a broader discussion of these events see above, Chapter 3. the reduction of the fortress to a pile of rubble, with 7 The threat had diminished but had not entirely disappeared. The final Crusade to the Holy Land led by Edward of England, took place in 1271–1272. 8 See above, Chapter 3, p. 36.