Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (111 page)

Figure 4.53
, Mamluk and Armenian arrow slits

When looking at this semi-concentric section, only one new tower (N) was added by the Mamluks along the inner wall. Although modest in dimensions (5m in diameter), it is designed rather like the large tower at
. It has a pentagonal plan with an arrow slit in each wall. A white band adorns the outer wall as at the Mamluk tower at Marqab.

The masonry

In 1280, during the Mamluk raid on the Armenian kingdom, a number of scouts passed the fortress; when they returned to the camp they described it as “black and huge”
.
²⁸⁵
was constructed from the local basalt. The masonry is generally coarser than in any of the other sites documented in this study. The only sections of fine smooth ashlar are the frames of the arrow slits (
Figure 4.53
); the rest of the fortress consists of small coarse building blocks. The Mamluks either recycled building stones or employed local masons.
²⁸⁶

In general it is difficult to define traditional Mamluk masonry styles. In many cases the masonry simply changes according to the type of stone and possibly according to regional traditions.

Guarding the Syrian Gates

Like
, Baghrās commanded an important pass in the south eastern Amanus known as the Belen pass or Syrian Gates.
²⁸⁷
The fortress is situated on one of the lowest points (740m) along the southern range, close to the crossing. The mountain range averages 1820m in height, though its peak, the Miğir (modern Turkish), attains 2262m. Most of the traffic moving between Cilicia and the north Syrian plains down to Aleppo and Antioch would have crossed via this pass. The distances from the Euphrates, which acted as the frontier line to the territory of the Armenian kingdom, and the northern Syrian cities are in fact extremely short. Even by thirteenth-century standards, the fortress of Baghrās was at the threshold of Aleppo and Antioch. The distance to Aleppo is approximately 50km, and to Antioch it was only 26km.

During most of the twelfth century Baghrās was officially within the boundaries of the principality of Antioch and together with the fortress of Darbssāk it defended Antioch from the north.
²⁸⁸
During the 1130s it passed into the hands of the Templars and remained there almost continuously up until the Mamluks’ arrival in 1268.
²⁸⁹
It did not, however, escape the turmoil that swept the region in the late twelfth century and its name appears in the list of fortresses taken by
al-Dīn in 584/1188.
al-Dīn ordered its reconstruction.
²⁹⁰
But soon afterwards the Ayyubids destroyed much of the fortifications for fear the fortress would fall into the hands of the German emperor, Frederick Barbarossa (d. 1190), who was making his way east at the head of a new Crusade. The Crusaders never reached the site. The Armenians ere quick to seize the opportunity, and rebuilt what the Ayyubids had destroyed.
²⁹¹
They ere to hold on to the fortress for the next 25 years (1191–1216).

According to Edwards, the Armenians did not attribute great importance to the castle.
²⁹²
It is difficult to accept Edward’s conclusion. The fortress figures as a key site,
of significant importance to all the political entities that had an interest in the region. Armenians, Franks and later the Mamluks fought over the site continuously; it was never left without a proprietor.

It is more than likely that the Templar fortifications were adequate and thus neither the Armenians nor the Mamluks enlarged or added significantly to the existing structure. The Armenian king was eventually forced to return Baghrās and in 1216 he reluctantly handed it back to the Templars. The very fact that he had held it for so many years, resisting pressure from the papal court, shows how important the site was to the Armenians.
²⁹³
This point is notworthy since the Armenians’ perception of the site did not change in the following decades.

The Mamluks first took possession of Baghrās in 666/1268. The Templars must have realized that they could not continue to hold on to the fortress once Antioch had fallen (1268), and simply handed it to the Mamluks without negotiating terms. Baybars immediately established a garrison and sent orders to arm and stock the place with supplies.
²⁹⁴
Like many of the fortresses on the Armenian frontier it was lost and then regained. In 1281 it fell into the hands of the Īlkhānids without a battle. The Mamluk garrison fled and abandoned the site. The Armenians must have received it as a gift since the Īlkhānids very rarely established their own garrisons in strongholds they captured. This arrangement was, however, short-lived. Within four years, Baghrās was returned to the Mamluks following an agreement signed in 1285 between Qalāwūn and Leon II, king of Armenia. From this point onwards it remained in Mamluk hands, and in 1347 it became a stage in the Mamluk
barīd
on the way to the port of Ayās.

Feeble towers and feeble walls

There has been some debate as to who built the core of the fortress. It is a good example of a case where neither the style of the architecture nor the masonry can provide secure dating. Lawrence and Edwards date most of the construction to the Templar occupation.
²⁹⁵
Müller-Wiener writes: “its compact design is reminiscent of many Armenian Castles.”
²⁹⁶
It seems likely that the Templars who held the fortress from the 1130s to 1191 would have built much of it during those years prior to the Armenians’ arrival. The structure has more in common with Frankish fortifications than with Armenian strongholds, which often left much of the natural terrain and exposed bedrock in the center of their fortresses.

Much of the fortress is still standing and well preserved. Measuring roughly 90m from north to south and 80m from west to east, it has a peculiarly compact design, as Müller-Wiener observed. The core consists of a large complex of rectangular vaulted halls built on several levels around a courtyard. The quality of the masonry is high, and the decorative designs around the doors and windows resemble Templar work.
²⁹⁷

The northwestern side is guarded by a steep gorge and has almost no defensive features. The eastern side is laid out in an interesting fashion. Thee are two lines of defense along the slope, on two separate terraces (Figures
4.54
,
4.55
). This plan may b considered as a semi-concentric fortress, similar to that at
but with considerably fewer towers. Though the Templar work is the most dominant there is evidence