Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (26 page)

Negotiating and compromising: topography and geology and their influence on the choice of building materials

The topography and geology to a large extent dictated the location, much of the plan and the type of building material used in the construction of the fortress. The architect,
¹³⁷
or the engineer, present at the site negotiated and compromised between the natural contours of the summit, in Mount Tabor, or the spur, in the case of
and
, and the positive and negative properties of the local stone. The limestone at Mount Tabor is porous and provides poor quality building material; on the other hand, it requires relatively less work to quarry. Cutting and dressing building blocks or hewing out a moat in the bedrock was easier thanks to the softness of the local stone. The topography of
is more dramatic. The almost vertical cliff
running down to the riverbed of
Govta along the northern side of the fortress is truly forbidding, while the southern side of the spur has a relatively moderate slope. Where possible the fortress plan makes the most of those natural defenses and the curtain wall runs almost exactly along the topographical contour lines. The qualities of the rock are very different to those at Mount Tabor. The had dolomite is more difficult to carve, and cutting and dressing the stone blocks as well as hacking out a wide moat must have been a more time-consuming task.
uses the topography in a similar fashion. It is located at the highest edge of the spur. The southern and eastern walls of the fortress rise directly from the edge of the steep cliffs of Wādī
, so that there is virtually no access to the fortress from those directions. Because the northern slope provides no real natural defense, an artificial cliff was cut from the bedrock in order to give the fortress wall better protection.

Out of all four fortresses
natural terrain gives the least protection, and it is altogether quite an enigma as to why this site was chosen. The small hill that the fortress is built on commands a fine view but this would hardly suffice as an answer. In fact, during many hot summer days the view can hardly be seen through the heavy haze that settles over the Jordan Valley. Since the topography provides the fortress with no natural defenses it was surrounded by a deep moat cut into the stone.

The quarries and their location

All four fortresses were built from the local limestone, the quarries being the site of the fortress itself. At
and Mount Tabor a large amount of the stone was quarried directly from the moats, while at
and
the quarry was established on the site in order to create a reasonably level courtyard within the fortress. Unlike most Crusader fortresses and fortified sites, where the stone was quarried at some distance from the site, the Ayyubid architects and engineers did not go out of their way even if the local stone was of relatively poor quality.
¹³⁸
They exploited the local material and made do with what they had in the immediate vicinity. It is hard to judge according to four case studies, but it seems as if, unlike the Franks, they preferred building directly on the bedrock and deliberately chose rock platforms rather than soil. To a certain extent the choice of location must have had an effect on the expense of the building. The cost of draught-animals, cats and men to manage the loading and transportation of stone from the quarry to the site was saved. Money and time were more often than not in short supply and cutting costs by placing the quarry on the site was a practical and simple idea.

Although most of the local limestone was relatively soft and easy to work, fairly durable to the climate, plentiful and free of charge (as opposed to bricks) it did, however, have disadvantages: “[The] exposure [of limestone] to fire, however, it can not bear, but splits and cracks to pieces at once.”
¹³⁹
This note of warning sounded by the Roman architect Vitruvius (1st century BC) was exploited by both Christian and Muslim sapper units, in tunneling under towers and walls. The tunnel would be filled with wood and set on fire, in order to bring down the construction while the intense heat of the fire cracked the stone, undermining the supports of the overlying constructions.

The order of building

Before analyzing the separate elements of the fortresses, methods of construction and their general as well as particular role in the scheme of defense the sequence of construction should be considered. How was a plan carried out? What part of the fortress was built first? The curtain wall and towers or the inner defenses and living quarters? Or perhaps the water cisterns? Was there a rule followed by all fortress builders? Or was each site built in a different order?