Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (106 page)

The sultan hath commanded that thou shalt surrender the fortress in peace, and that thou shalt take thy monks and go and dwell in Jerusalem. And he will give thee villages sufficient to maintain thee. And if thou dost not wish to act thus, but dost wish to go to Cilicia, in this case likewise we will transport thee on our mules and horses with all honour. But if thou resists, and will not surrender [it], God will require the blood of all these Christians from thee.
²⁵³

The answer of the prelate was short and decisive:

I will fight until I die. I cannot be faithful both to God and to the king.
²⁵⁴

The Mamluk force was of considerable size – 1,000 mounted men and 4,000 infantry. No siege machines are mentioned and the only siege equipment we hear of are ladders that were used to scale the walls of the town.
²⁵⁵
Bar Hebraeus mentions a new wall built by the Armenians; it was meant to guard the city but was quickly overcome by the Mamluk force. Here, however, their assault ended, since they were not able to breach the fortress walls. The siege failed and the entire Mamluk force left after setting fire to the city and raiding the nearby surroundings. The site was evidently well fortified. The strength of the site is attested by the failure of this first siege and the length of the second Mamluk siege in 691/1291–2. In addition to the effort required, the size of the force in both accounts suggests that this may have been one of the most difficult sieges undertaken by the Mamluks in their first three decades. The Armenians did not fall for trickery nor did they favor negotiations. Al-Ashraf Khalīl mobilized 20 siege machines against the defenders; the garrison eventually capitulated after 33 days.
²⁵⁶

To celebrate his triumph the sultan insisted on changing the name to
al-Muslimīn; the new name, however, never took root and the site continues to appear in later sources as
. Once the fortress had fallen the sultan carried out what by then had become almost a routine. He nominated his amir Sanjar
to supervise the reconstruction and work began.
who was at the time the governor of Damascus, participated in several building projects conducted during the reign of Qalāwūn.
²⁵⁷
According to Maqrīzī the restoration needed was mainly due to damage caused by the Mamluk siege units employed by al-Ashraf Khalīl.
²⁵⁸

The victory was further commemorated in an inscription on the Aleppo citadel gate. It sums up the military achievements of al-Ashraf Khalīl: his conquest of Acre and the taking of
. The sites are not mentioned by name and the inscription simply refers to the defeated armies of the Franks and Armenians. The Mongols also figure in this inscription though there was no battle or siege in which their armies were directly involved during al-Ashraf Khalīl’s reign.

The main section of the inscription on the Aleppo citadel gate
²⁵⁹

(4) … lord of kings and rulers, Sultan of the (5) army of the monotheists the helper of true faith and proofs, re-newer of justness in the world. [Destroyer] of deviators and the rebels, slayer of infidels and unbelievers, victor (6) over tyrants and renegades, suppressor of the worshipers of the crosses, Alexander of [his] time, conqueror of the cities, defeater of the armies of the Franks, the Armenians and the Mongols, demolisher of Acre and the lands of the coast, re-newer of the noble
dynasty, helper of the community of
Khalīl b. the Sultan al-Malik
Qalāwūn, may God exalt his supporters, and this was in the year 691/1291–2.

Although the siege is described in several sources, none go beyond the military events and no further details are given concerning the layout or general plan of the fortress

One of the most detailed modern accounts was written by T. E. Lawrence who visited
in July 1911. His letters and diary, later published under the title
Oriental Assembly
, describe parts of the fortress that have since collapsed. The diary contains his own drawings and a number of photographs.
²⁶⁰