III.—The Defences of the Citadel of Damascus; a Great Mohammedan Fortress of the Time of the Crusades

D. J. Cathcart King

doi:10.1017/S0261340900007219

III.—The Defences of the Citadel of Damascus; a Great Mohammedan Fortress of the Time of the Crusades

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2011

D. J. Cathcart King

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

The great medieval citadel of Damascus has not apparently received any serious notice in English; the important monographs, in French and German, which have been devoted to it are concerned principally with general architecture on the one part, and with epigraphy on the other. It is not intended in this article to deal further with these particular topics—indeed, the author is not qualified to do so—but to describe the citadel as a fortress and a monument of Islamic military art.

Type: Research Article
Information: Archaeologia , Volume 94 , 1951 , pp. 57 - 96

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900007219 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 57 note 1} , Sauvaget, ‘La Citadelle de Damas’, Syria, xi, 59–90 and 216–41Google Scholar ; and Sobernheim, M., ‘Die Inschriften der Zitadelle von Damaskus’, Der Islam, xii (Berlin, 1921), 1–28Google Scholar ; , Wiet, ‘Notes d'épigraphie syro-musulmane’, Syria, vii, 48 et seq.Google Scholar ; , Wulzinger and , Watzinger, Damaskus (Berlin and Leipzig, 1924), i, 54–6, and ii, 166-82, plans 14-17 and 60Google Scholar .

^{page 57 note 2} A senior officer of my acquaintance, a man of culture and intelligence, admitted to me, after we had been stationed in the vicinity for several months, that he had no notion that there was such a thing as a citadel at Damascus!

^{page 57 note 3} The greater part of this damage belongs to a fairly recent period. Dilapidations must have occurred, especially under Turkish rule, but down to the eighteenth century the citadel was treated as a serious fortress; D'Arvieux in 1660 and Maundrell in 1698 were both put in fear of their lives when examining the defences. In 1771 (v. infra, p. 83) the citadel stood siege, and the damage done by the bombardment was repaired at once. Under these circumstances it is quite easy to believe Porter, who mentions the exterior as being ‘in good repair’ in 1850. Probably the damage to the western end of the enclosure followed soon after this, but as to the rest of the structure, it may well have survived more or less intact up to the beginning of this century; certainly von Oppenheim's photograph, published in 1899, shows the southeastern corner in an almost perfect state of preservation. It is between the date of this photograph and 1914, when Herzfeld's pictures were taken, that most of the mischief seems to have been done. The Herzfeld photographs reveal a substantial measure of damage; fortunately there seems to have been no change for the worse between this time and my visits in 1942 and 1943. Since that time the fabric has suffered fresh damage from shellfire during the unhappy events of the Syrian revolution; I am glad to be able to state that this, according to Mr. C. N. Johns, does not appear to be serious.

^{page 58 note 1} V. infra for a discussion of this tower, p. 91.

^{page 59 note 1} Similar terraces in English castles are of late date, for they weaken the defence, and belong to an unwarlike age.

^{page 59 note 2} See plan, planche iv, Sauvaget, Mon. hist, de Damas.

^{page 60 note 1} , D'Arvieux, Memoires, ii, 449Google Scholar ; , Kremer, Topographie von Damaskus, ii, 22Google Scholar .

^{page 60 note 2} It should be admitted that statements of this kind require careful scrutiny, and in the case of European castles usually prove to be untrue; but here there is no reason whatever to disbelieve the assertion.

^{page 60 note 3} Mon. hist. de Damas, vi.

^{page 60 note 4} Appendix A, No. 1.

^{page 61 note 1} The word brattice is employed in this article to describe the small projecting machicolations for which the French term is bretèche.

^{page 61 note 2} ‘Citadel of Cairo’, Bulletin de l'nstitut français d'archeologie orientale, xxxiii, 118Google Scholar .

^{page 63 note 1} , Creswell, ‘Citadel of Cairo’, Bulletin de l'nstitut français d' archeologie orientate, xxiii, 115–22Google Scholar ; , Johns, Mediaeval 'Ajlun—the Castle’, Quarterly, Department of Antiquities, Palestine, i, 27Google Scholar ; , Deschamps, La Défense du Royaume de Jérusalem, pp. 171–2Google Scholar .

^{page 63 note 2} The truth of this is attested by the inscription on tower 3 (Appendix A, No. 3) which records that the building was ordered by the sultan and carried out by alMansur Muhammad, prince of Hama. Sauvaget also mentions strongly Aleppine features in parts of the citadel, suggesting that az-Zahir Gazi of Aleppo also bore a hand in the work (Syria, xii, 222-6).

^{page 63 note 3} There is a parallel in the North Welsh castle of Caernarvon, which was also built around an obsolete fortification. This was erected in the same way in two sections, their meeting-point being marked by a conspicuous and untidy knuckle in the curtain.

^{page 65 note 1} Sobernheim's inscription, 1290; Sauvaget's, 1288 or later. Qalawun died in 1290.

^{page 65 note 2} See , Sauvaget, ‘La Citadelle’, Syria, xi, 229–31Google Scholar . Sobernheim was led to imagine a gallery of some kind outside the citadel, through understanding the name ‘Bab an-Nasr’ to refer to the east gate of the citadel.

^{page 65 note 3} Tower 2 is 88 ft. 3 in./26.90 m. long, by 42 ft. 2 in./ 12.85 m. deep.

^{page 66 note 1} This plan is employed in a Mamluk tower, probably built by Bybars, on the east side of the outer line of defence at Le Krak des Chevaliers. It is evidently a copy of the towers of Damascus, on a reduced scale.

^{page 68 note 1} This ruined state is relatively modern; the tower is shown fairly well preserved in the photograph by von Oppenheim in Vom Mittelmeer zum persischen Golf (Berlin, 1899),i ,64Google Scholar .

^{page 69 note 1} At roof-level it is almost exactly the same in length and depth: 88 ft. 2 in./26.90 m. by 42 ft. 1 in./12.87 m.

^{page 69 note 2} See diagram, , Sauvaget, ‘La Citadelle’, Syria, 1930, p. 72Google Scholar .

^{page 69 note 3} Ibid., p. 66, for diagram.

^{page 69 note 4} Ibid., p. 72, for diagram.

^{page 70 note 1} , Sauvaget, ‘La Citadelle’, Syria, xi, places this on 2–3 according to the text (p. 228) and the plate (pl. xxxviii) and on 3-4 according to the plan (pl. xxxix)Google Scholar . I have not seen the inscription myself.

^{page 70 note 2} The photograph in , von Oppenheim, Vom Mittelmeer zum persischen Golf (Berlin, 1899), i, 64Google Scholar , shows towers 2-7 standing to their full height; tower 4 is clearly the tallest of these.

^{page 70 note 3} 86 ft. 6 in./26.37 m. wide by 42 ft. 4 in./12.90 m. deep.

^{page 72 note 1} Note: the elevation shows the tower restored (without modern windows, etc.) and omits the three inscriptions.

^{page 72 note 2} Part of this vault, near the south-east corner, has collapsed, or been pulled down.

^{page 72 note 3} The only examples I know are in the Great Gate of Aleppo and a few at Le Krak des Chevaliers. Plunges are rare in Crusader work also.

^{page 72 note 4} Towers 7 and 8 are equipped with brattices on this scale.

^{page 72 note 5} A similar feature is to be seen in the largest of the towers at the acropolis of Ba'albek.

^{page 72 note 6} It is, however, certain that some sort of stair was part of the original design, and the addition of this one is most likely due to al-Adil.

^{page 73 note 1} About 10 ft. on the front of tower 3.

^{page 73 note 2} The poplar serves as the local timber-producing tree.

^{page 74 note 1} There are examples in the citadels of Cairo, Aleppo, and Jerusalem, the temple-fortress of Ba'albek, the Damascus Gate at Jerusalem, and the castles of Saône, Le Krak des Chevaliers, Kerak in Moab, arid Tortosa. Others were until comparatively recent times to be seen at Giblet (Jebail), Margat (Markab), and the Talisman Gate at Baghdad; this is by no means an exhaustive list, and surviving examples are probably a very small minority of those originally built, many castles having lost their parapets altogether. In one or two cases on curtains the parapets are triple.

^{page 74 note 2} ‘Notes d'epigraphie syro-musulmane’, Syria, vii, 52–3.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} The first-floor door is almost certainly modern, as it is reached by an iron balcony from the roof of the gallery.

^{page 75 note 2} It is perhaps no accident that almost the only accurate and modest building inscription of the Mamluk period in the citadel is that of an-Nasir Muhammad I (a prince by inheritance) at the east gate.

^{page 75 note 3} Nos. 8-15.

^{page 75 note 4} These are still to be seen in the photograph in , von Oppenheim, Vom Mittelmeer zum Persischen Golf (Berlin, 1899), i, 64Google Scholar , together with the complete superstructures of towers 6 and 7, now destroyed. This photograph also shows a small brattice on the curtain 5-6, and the remains of the Turkish construction built over the barbican (v. infra, p. 78).

^{page 75 note 5} Not to be confused with the earlier sultan, Qalawun's son, of the same name.

^{page 76 note 1} ‘La Citadelle’, Syria, xi, 237Google Scholar ; but cf. p. 74, where a contrary view seems to be expressed.

^{page 76 note 2} ‘Notes d'épigraphie syror-musulmane’, Syria, vii, 62–6Google Scholar .

^{page 76 note 3} Van Berchem, and Fatio, , Voyage en Syrie (Cairo, 1914) i 210–11Google Scholar .

^{page 76 note 4} It is about 90 ft./27.50 m. wide and projects about 36 ft./11 m. on the south.

^{page 77 note 1} The little gate at the Burg az-Zafr at Cairo, and two gates in the citadel there (Bab al-Qarafa and Burg al-Matar), all Saladin's work, are examples of this form of entrance.

^{page 77 note 2} This is the inscription already mentioned on account of the comparative accuracy of its claims.

^{page 78 note 1} This name led Soberriheim to confuse the gate with Bab an-Nasr, a vanished town-gate near the south-west corner of the citadel, and as a result to misinterpret inscription No. 17, commemorating Qalawun's restoration of the main gallery.

^{page 79 note 1} A dovecote into which I did not attempt to penetrate.

^{page 80 note 1} Qalawun employed the same disposition in his great square tower at the south of Le Krak des Chevaliers.

^{page 80 note 2} I could not get into this part of the gallery as a result.

^{page 80 note 3} It has lost a series of plain narrow merlons since 1914; see pl. xix, d.

^{page 81 note 1} From a distance, tower 4 is very conspicuous; tower 3 only a little less so; it is not very easy to pick out tower 8.

^{page 82 note 1} Porter, , Five Years in Damascus (London, 1870), p. 18Google Scholar .

^{page 82 note 2} , Wulzinger and , Watzinger (Damaskus, ii, 168)Google Scholar mark a rebuilt portion in the north-west angle of the second story, which is probably correctly shown, though it should be admitted that this plan differs from that of , Sauvaget (‘La Citadelle’, p. 74)Google Scholar and that they mark a similar rebuilt section in the basement, which is certainly not there. In any case, however, the internal damage is extremely localized, and does not correspond with the exterior refacing.

^{page 83 note 1} After the medieval fashion; ville prise, château rendu was the European practice at this time.

^{page 83 note 2} Savary, , Letters on Egypt (Dublin, 1787), ii, 127Google Scholar.

^{page 83 note 3} Ibid., p. 128.

^{page 83 note 4} Ibid., pp. 125–6.

^{page 83 note 5} He was there in 1914; van Berchem had copied the inscription in 1894. It is possible that this wall was still standing in part at the time Sobernheim paid his visit, as it is shown on the plan to his article ( Der Islam, xii (1922), facing p. 28)Google Scholar .

^{page 83 note 6} With the singular result that I could determine neither the arrangement of the door at the end of the gallery, nor that of the arrow-slit in the side recess (S, fig. 4), both gallery and recess were blocked with fodder, and the outside of the wall had stones piled against it, masking the opening of the slit. Both these details, therefore, are supplied by conjecture. The stump of curtain at this point seems to have been refaced in part at some period.

^{page 84 note l} It is 97 ft. 6in./29.75 m. wide, and 56 ft. 9 in./17.30m. in depth. Its projection is about 46 ft./14 m.

^{page 84 note 2} The west flank (less thickening) 12 ft. 11 in./3.95 m.; the east 13 ft. 1 in./4 m.

^{page 85 note 1} , Johns, ‘Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle, ‘Atlit’, Quarterly, Department of Antiquities, Palestine, iii, 152–9Google Scholar .

^{page 85 note 2} ‘La Citadelle’, Syria, xi, 77Google Scholar . There was a similar cupola in the big south-east tower of Ba'albek. Here its purpose is clearly to light a room which can have had little or no other lighting. It may well have been a later addition, as it seems probable that the passage was originally intended to run straight on, through the central archway, which would have admitted sufficient light.

^{page 86 note 1} The door, as I have mentioned, was completely inaccessible under a pile of forage.

^{page 86 note 2} Which Sauvaget has identified with the old alHadid, Bab (‘La Citadelle’, Syria, xi, 79–80)Google Scholar .

^{page 86 note 3} Sauvaget marks one and it seems extremely likely that such a door existed.

^{page 87 note 1} The curious thinness of the wall of the inner gate-hall containing the mihrab should be noticed. The exact thickness shown in the plan cannot be guaranteed in view of the great difficulties involved in measuring this tower; but it is quite certainly very thin.

^{page 87 note 2} This attribution to Saladin was unfavourably received by Professor K. A. C. Creswell of Cairo, whose opinion must carry very great weight.

^{page 88 note 1} This has been walled and partitioned off, and is now inaccessible, so that its junction with the gate-tower as shown on the plan is largely conjectural.

^{page 88 note 2} About 34 ft. by 43 ft. (10.70 m. by 13.50 m.).

^{page 89 note 1} The provincial governor, not the constable of the citadel, who was a separate personage, directly responsible to the sultan and—in normal times—outside the governors control.

^{page 89 note 2} It is worthy of note that in the troubles of the early part of Nawruz's governorship, no attempt seems to have been made to use Damascus as a fortress; it was repeatedly evacuated without a fight.

^{page 91 note 1} The new and old parts of the east wall are not in alinement (see fig. 6).

^{page 91 note 2} , D'Arvieux (Mémoires, ii, 449–51)Google Scholar describes the citadel as having fourteen towers, two on each of the short faces. Unless the two on the west face were abnormally small, there would hardly be room for them, and it is significant that D'Arvieux entered the citadel by the east gate where there are two towers, and that he was in disguise, and dared not make a long examination. Under these circumstances an error of the kind is very understandable; for a much more alarming miscount of the towers, see Porter, , Five Years in Damascus, p. 18Google Scholar .

^{page 91 note 3} From the location of the Turkish repairs, Abu Dahab's battery position of 1771 was to the north-west of the citadel, probably on the high ground near the foot of the Salahiyeh road, and thus in a position equally effective for battering the west face.

^{page 96 note 1} Mon. hist, de Damas, p. 42.

Article contents

III.—The Defences of the Citadel of Damascus; a Great Mohammedan Fortress of the Time of the Crusades

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests