_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): Introduction _full_article_language: en

IntroductionIntroduction 1 Introduction

Medieval mechanical has interested historians for centuries, yet our understanding of these engines remains fairly poor. Whereas technical trea- tises, detailed contemporary descriptions and illustrations survive from the classical and Renaissance periods, evidence dating to the is rela- tively scarce. In the absence of lucid contemporary descriptions, medieval ar- tillery (mechanical stone-throwing machines) tends to be dealt with quite generally or studied in a very broad context. This has allowed historians, often relying on the most sensational anecdotal scenarios, to put forward various theories relating to the development and capabilities of these engines. In order to avoid the generalisations that have accompanied previous stud- ies, the focus here will be on a specific region and a relatively short period of time: the Levant, from 1097 to 1291. From the arrival of the First Crusade in Anatolia until the expulsion of the Franks from Palestine and Syria, this was a dynamic period of conflict, coexistence and cooperation between Latin, Greek, Armenian and Syrian Christians, as well as Sunni and Shiite , Turks and local Syrian . This nexus of cultures left a rich collection of literary sources, composed by a range of individuals from different cultural back- grounds writing from different perspectives. Although these contemporary sources present an informative window into the use and steady development of artillery technology during this period, their testimony must be reconciled with examinations of available archaeological evidence, the topography that influenced the use of artillery in each scenario and an understanding of the mechanics that governed the function of these engines. Unfortunately, most previous studies have dealt with only the most sensa- tional descriptions of artillery and have neglected the wealth of less detailed references that can help to construct a more complete picture of these ma- chines and how they were used. Likewise, few have attempted to incorporate archaeological evidence or a sound appreciation of the practical physics of tre- buchet technology. Such shortfalls have allowed scholars to accept at face val- ue certain reports and figures, often provided by medieval authors with limited understanding of contemporary technology, leading to assumptions that these machines were far more powerful than appears to have been the reality. Over the past two centuries or so, the views of many scholars have been in- fluenced by the significance of modern artillery. At times, historians have even drawn direct parallels between modern howitzers and the mechanical engines

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004376922_002 2 Introduction regarded as their medieval predecessors.1 In his seminal work on twelfth-cen- tury crusader warfare, R.C. Smail highlighted the inability of crusader to halt advancing , pointing out that these were not the forts of the eigh- teenth century with guns that could effectively close roads and obstruct the movements of large bodies of troops.2 While few people associate the power of medieval defensive artillery with that of the modern era, there remains a per- vasive tendency to characterise engines as proto-bombards, the ex- clusive function of which was to smash holes in walls. Much as Smail forced us to reconsider the role of castles, it is time to re-evaluate the development of artillery during this period and the ways in which these engines were em- ployed. Among the best studies of medieval siege warfare in the Levant since that of Smail are those of Randall Rogers, Christopher Marshall and John France. Rog- ers and Marshall focused on the twelfth and thirteenth centuries respectively while France examined in an around the crusader principalities in a broader study of medieval warfare in the Latin world.3 All three works operate primarily from a Frankish perspective and only Rogers examines artillery in any detail. Contrastingly, Paul Chevedden has operated primarily from a Mus- lim point of view and has perhaps devoted more attention to medieval artillery than any other modern scholar since Kalervo Huuri. His theories, however, tend to be built around a selection of choice anecdotes.4 The present study is, in part, a response to the ideas of these men: an at- tempt to improve our understanding of the development and role of mechani- cal artillery during this period and to integrate this into our conception of contemporary siege warfare; and, to address the exaggerated notions of power that have become popular in recent decades. In order to do this, it is necessary

1 Chevedden’s statement that “The Big Bertha of the pre-modern era was the ” is perhaps the most direct, Chevedden, “King James I,” p. 313. As will be shown, such a compari- son is quite inaccurate, or at the very least misleading. 2 Smail, Crusading Warfare, esp. pp. 204-5. 3 Rogers, Latin Siege Warfare; Marshall, Warfare in the Latin East; France, Victory in the East; France, Western Warfare. Rogers devotes the most attention to artillery; however, his primary concern is siege towers when dealing with Frankish sieges in the Levant during the twelfth century. He claims that the use of artillery was better suited to the Normans of South Italy and examines it in this context, despite its more frequent appearance in sources dealing with the Latin East. 4 See Chevedden, The of Damascus; Chevedden, “Artillery of King James I,” pp. 47-94; Chevedden, “The Hybrid Trebuchet,” pp. 179-222; Chevedden, “ and the Development of Defensive Planning,” pp. 33-43; Chevedden, “Invention,” pp. 71-116; Chevedden, “Black ,” pp. 227-77; Chevedden, “King James I,” pp. 313-39.