For two centuries, from about 1097 to 1291, Muslims and Christians fought with each other and with themselves for control of the Levant, its resources and holy places. This period, often referred to as ‘the crusades’, can be characterized by the involvement of Europeans in the Middle East; as such, it tends to be viewed from a Western perspective, framed as a binary struggle between Christians and Muslims. In reality, the conflicts of this period were far more complicated, with notions of ‘crusade’ and ‘jihad’ evoked for political advantage as well as religious piety. At the core of this contest for territory and influence was a series of sieges. Although a battle might precipitate or facilitate siege operations, it was the acquisition and possession of strongholds that allowed for the practical administration of territory and control of regional economics.
Strongholds (castles and fortified towns) were bases of influence from which local control was exercised, while sieges were simply the concerted attacks made against these defensible positions. Every siege was unique, influenced by an assortment of geographical, political, social, economic and other factors specific to each scenario; nevertheless, sets of conflicting strategic and tactical aims lay at the core of each: a desire to maintain control of a region and a desire to take it; the means of taking possession and the means of resisting. These fundamental principles will be used as the framework for most of the following chapters.
* * *
For almost as long as people have constructed dwellings, fortifications have been added around some individual residences and larger communities. By the Middle Ages, this desire for security led wealthy figures to commission impressive castles and town defences. The scale and strength of a given stronghold reflected a number of factors; foremost among these were the investment spent by its patron(s), the perceived value of the stronghold, and the threats it might be expected to resist. While a castle might be built to dominate a rural region, town walls provided protection for commercial centres. Every stronghold had an underlying military purpose, but most fulfilled a number of other functions. Many were seats of local or regional administration, while some were built as part of broader political strategies that aimed to weaken or counter the aggression of a neighbour – these were not just defensive structures.
To take a stronghold, a besieger had to first possess the resources to overcome its defences and defenders. There was then the threat of a relief force. It was difficult to predict when a hostile field army might arrive to help the defenders, and how large it would be; misjudging this could result not only in the failure of the siege, but in a crushing defeat from which the besiegers might struggle to recover. Accordingly, besiegers often struck at opportune moments, which might follow an adversary’s defeat or his preoccupation elsewhere. Alternatively, besiegers might attempt to strike rapidly or at an unexpected time. Opportunity could also be created through peace agreements, which might isolate an opponent or provide security from the opportunistic attacks of others while conducting siege operations.
Once the aggressors had committed themselves to a siege, there was the matter of how to conclude it before a sufficient relief force arrived to drive them away. If besiegers decided on an aggressive tactical approach, they could endeavour to bring down a section of a stronghold’s defences or to go over them. Alternatively, they might try to starve the defenders into submission or attempt to negotiate the fall of the stronghold, by persuading someone inside to help them in or by arranging a formal surrender. If an aggressive approach were taken, success might depend on the construction of siege engines, which could be as simple as ladders, or the work of sappers, who were relied upon to breach town and castle walls. Regardless of how they developed, most successful sieges ended with a negotiated surrender. If a stronghold fell instead by force, those within were entirely at the mercy of the besiegers.
With such high stakes, fortifications were constantly developing as their designers sought to confront new threats posed by besiegers and to create new challenges for them. In general, specific defensive elements and architectural features were arranged to allow defenders to resist potential besiegers for as long as possible. As besieging forces became stronger, fortifications became more elaborate, and an increasing emphasis was placed on facilitating an active defence.
The crusades were a nexus of interaction, drawing together people from as far away as Persia and Britain, but the extent to which the siege traditions of various parties influenced those of others is still hotly debated. Most siege technologies had spread prior to the arrival of the earliest crusaders, while those which would develop during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, notably the counterweight trebuchet, had a far from dramatic genesis and were adopted and reproduced as soon as their potential value became apparent. Architecturally, the crusaders clearly imported certain features and designs with them, but so too were some Eastern elements brought back to Europe. Despite this environment of interaction and sharing, the structure of Frankish and Muslim armies remained distinct. Notwithstanding these differences, it seems inappropriate to suggest that any of the various parties possessed a superior siege tradition. Although clear patterns are evident in the frequency, success and length of this period’s sieges, these trends were influenced primarily by broader political developments, rather than by the particular ability of certain individuals or the more advanced practices of any cultural group. Because these sieges are so intertwined with the broader historical context, it seems sensible to start with a brief overview of the period.