Influence of Offensive Artillery Full Article Language: En

_full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien B2 voor dit chapter en nul 0 in hierna): 0 _full_alt_articletitle_running_head (oude _articletitle_deel, vul hierna in): Influence of Offensive Artillery _full_article_language: en 322 Chapter 8 Chapter 8 Influence of Offensive Artillery In the nineteenth century, the famed historian, architect and architectural re- storer, Eugene Emanuel Viollet-le-Duc remarked, “We cannot doubt that the crusades, during which so many memorable sieges were effected, improved the means of attack, and that consequently important modifications were in- troduced into the defence of fortified places.”1 As the means of attack and defence advanced, it is widely contested to what degree siege engines were a driving, rather than reciprocally developing, element of this process. In Viollet- le-Duc’s opinion, up to the thirteenth century fortifications remained essen- tially static bulks of masonry, defended by small garrisons. Without expressly stating why or examining the underlying causes, he concluded that it was a direct result of the crusades that such defences were no longer sufficient and more methodically built fortifications, with larger and more active garrisons, were built from the late twelfth century. Opinions like this reflect noticeable changes in the style and scale of fortifications constructed in Western Europe and the Near East at the end of the twelfth century and start of the thirteenth. This has often led to the assump- tion that a new style of castle was imported to Europe from the Levant via the crusades. Because the crusades were a natural point of exposure between Lat- in Christians and Turco-Arabic Muslims, they have been regarded at times as almost a semi-mystical source of cross-cultural technological sharing and are occasionally offered up as a blind explanation for certain developments. How- ever, there appears to be little evidence that the mighty castles built by Richard I of England and Philip II of France were influenced directly by Frankish ex- amples. Belvoir was the most remarkable Frankish-built castle at the time of the Third Crusade, but it had fallen to Saladin before 1191 and, like most other large Frankish castles, was not seen by either monarch. It is often overlooked that most of the iconic ‘crusader castles’, at least in their recognisable forms, date to the early thirteenth century and thus postdate mighty European castles such as Château Gaillard. The impressive castles and citadels built or significantly developed in the late twelfth century and, more frequently, early thirteenth century, were often larger than earlier strongholds with thicker walls and more concentric plans. This naturally encourages suspicion that this shift in scale and sophistication 1 Viollet-le-Duc, Dictionnaire, 1:341-42, trans. Macdermott, in An Essay, p. 31. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004376922_011 _full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien B2 voor dit chapter en nul 0 in hierna): 0 _full_alt_articletitle_running_head (oude _articletitle_deel, vul hierna in): Influence of Offensive Artillery _full_article_language: en Influence Of Offensive Artillery 323 was the result of some acute need to completely replace outdated twelfth-century fortification styles with stronger and more ‘scientific’ designs. The introduction or development of powerful counterweight trebuchets is often regarded as the impetus behind this change.2 Neither siege towers nor rams had developed considerably since the early twelfth century and the use of both was sparse in the thirteenth century. Mining remained an effective siege weap- on but no technological advance was made until the introduction of gunpow- der, long after the Franks had been pushed out of Acre. Theories Regarding the Influence of Artillery In the early twentieth century, Sydney Toy attributed the declining use of rams to the superseding power of trebuchets.3 Taking matters much further, Paul Chevedden has emerged as the champion of those arguing that the power of artillery during the Early and High Middle Ages has been grossly underesti- mated. The breadth of his studies is commendable and the subsequent impact of his arguments on general interpretations of medieval artillery cannot be understated. Chevedden claims that the counterweight trebuchet was nothing less than the Big Bertha of the pre-modern era, used to demolish fortifications with pro- jectiles weighing hundreds of kilograms.4 What began as a PhD thesis address- ing the massive towers built by al-‘Adil at the citadel of Damascus has developed into a broader theory explaining what he sees as a revolution in fortification planning. Simply put, this transition was necessitated by a need to defend against extremely powerful counterweight trebuchets by mounting similarly large engines on top of towers in defence.5 In Chevedden’s words, The counterweight trebuchet was so far superior to any piece of artillery yet invented that its introduction brought about a revolution in siegecraft that rendered existing systems of defence obsolete. This gravity-powered siege-engine could discharge missiles of far greater weight than the 2 The number of historians that have endorse this idea over the last few decades is sufficient to leave any attempt to name them all incomplete. To be fair, most do so in passing, without examining the matter very closely. 3 Toy, Castles, p. 142. 4 Chevedden, “King James I,” p. 313. 5 See Chevedden, The Citadel of Damascus, pp. 283-84; Chevedden, “Fortifications,” p. 36; Chevedden, “Invention,” p. 71..

Load more