Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (71 page)

The first quarter of the fourteenth century ended with a large scale raid on the port of Ayās. The conduct of the siege (spring 722/1322) suggests that the Mamluk army was thoroughly informed and arrived prepared with a team of sappers, siege machine and engineers recruited well in advance. The city was defended from both land and sea.
¹⁸⁸
While the citadel fell without too much difficulty, the conquest of the sea-bound fortress required large-scale earthworks. Two causeways were built, and two large siege machines were rolled up opposite the fortress walls. The siege ended after the Armenian garrison set fire to the fortress and escaped. The Mamluk army saw to the destruction of the citadel and left.
¹⁸⁹
The citadel was rebuilt a year later with help from Pope John XXII.
¹⁹⁰

The information gathered from the sources does not always match that of the archaeological survey. According to Edwards, four fortresses were rebuilt by the Mamluks during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: Anavarza (al-Zarb), Sīs,
and Tumlu.
¹⁹¹
It seems more than likely that some of the fortresses turned over to the Mamluks did not require any restoration work. Those that did may well have been rebuilt by local Armenian workers, so that it would be difficult to identify the additions. In Anavarza and Tumlu, I could not find any remains of Mamluk construction. If the Mamluks did any rebuilding in either of these fortresses they must have used local methods and/or Armenian workers. In contrast,
, only a short distance from Anavarza and Tumlu (40–50 km), has a distinct and unmistakable Mamluk style similar to those seen in Mamluk fortresses in Trans-Jordan (Karak and
) Syria (
) and
on the upper Euphrates.
¹⁹²

Mamluk interests in Cilicia were neither vague nor concealed. The need to defend northern Syria led to an uncompromising policy towards the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia. The necessity to hold fortresses and Mamluk garrisons in Cilicia, and maintain a permanent presence there resulted from the fear that Cilicia could be used by the Īlkhāns, the Crusaders or the Armenians as a jumping-off point to reconquer Syria. The economic aspects are an important factor in this discussion. The opening of an alternative land route connecting the Eastern Mediterranean with central Asia

Table 3.3
The results of Mamluk raids and treaties in Cilicia