Those crusaders who settled in the Levant after the First Crusade, and who shall be referred to as Franks from here on, suffered from a distinct shortage of manpower from the very beginning of their time in the East. An estimated 60,000 people had set forth from Western Europe in 1096 on the First Crusade, but by the time the crusaders had lain siege to Jerusalem in the summer of 1099, their number had shrunk to around 12,000. To make matters worse, after the successful investment Jersualem many crusaders, their vows completed, decided to return to their homes in Europe. Surrounded by a multitude of hostile neighbours, the remnant which remained struggled to hold onto their new lands. The paucity of manpower and the size of the territory needing to be defended meant that castle building became an important element of Frankish strategy.
Those castles which the Franks constructed throughout modern day Palestine, Israel, Syria and Jordan surpassed in size and strength any contemporary structure in Europe. Indeed, it is not until the late 13th century and Edward I’s castles in Wales that we see anything of comparible size in Europe. Edward had himself been on crusade in the 1270s and was clearly influenced by the castles he saw in the Levant. The Franks blended western and eastern architectural techniques to create some of the most impressive medieval fortifications to be found outside China. These castles became a key component in maintaining, against the odds, a western Christian presence in the East well into the 13th century. The scale and cost of castle building activity is an indication of the importance and usefulness of these structures to those who built them.
Castles are first and foremost defensive structures and their fortifications and advantageous positions allow them to be defended by far fewer men than would be needed to successfully besiege them. The castle of Crac de Chevaliers, situated high on a ridge and using collosal ramparts and towers to improve an already naturally strong position, could be defended by relatively few men and could still effectively control the surrounding area. Crac itself was besieged on three separate occasions during the 13th century before finally falling in 1271 to a much larger besieging force. Although castles could be avoided and skirted, it was never a good idea to leave a castle and its garrison behind one’s line of march. If besieged, a small garrison could hold up the advance of an enemy force for months. Constructing castles was therefore a priority when new territory was won. Montreal Castle, for instance, was constructed in 1115 by King Baldwin I of Jerusalem to consolidate and expand Frankish authority for the first time in the Transjordan region.
The geographical situation of each castle was key to its success as a defensive asset. The castle of Saphet in Galilee which was built during the reign of King Fulk (1131-43), prevented Muslim raiding parties from Damascus from entering Frankish territory. We are fortunate to have a contemporary account (De Constructione Castri Saphet) of the reconstruction of Saphet by the Knights Templar in the 1240s. The anonymous author notes the effectiveness of the castle at preventing raids:
‘…before the building of the said castle Saracens, Bedouin, Khorezmians and Turcomans frequently made incursions all the way to Acre and throughout the rest of the Christians’ land. But the construction of Saphet created a means of resistance and an obstable. The Muslims would not dare (unless they were a great multitude) to cross over the River Jordan in order to harm the Christians.’
Alongside their defensive capabilities, castles played an integral role in offensive Frankish military activity. This usage is perhaps less common in the West where manpower was not at such a premium. However, in the Levant, as we have seen, the Franks suffered from a severe shortage of fighting troops. After Jerusalem was taken in 1099, the Franks turned their attention to taking all the towns, cities and castles which they had left behind in their rush to reach Jerusalem. Without the field armies available to besiege them, the Franks often constructed forts and castles around towns and cities to pressurise and blockade garrisons into submission. The city of Tripoli surrendered in 1109 after Raymond of St Gilles had a castle constructed to blockade the city. Ascalon, located on the coast to the south-west of Jerusalem was also finally taken in 1153 after years of pressure exerted by the construction of castles in the vicinity.
When large armies were available, usually crusading armies arriving from Europe, castles played a key role in their strategy. Castles provided safe stopping points for armies on the march; allowing them to resupply and leave behind any sick or wounded. They also ensured that lines of communication were left open and they could always be used as rallying points if the situation took a turn for the worse. Because of the difficulty of raising large armies, open battle was seldom risked. Instead, a passive aggressive approach was usually taken which involved a Frankish army shadowing, but not engaging, an invading enemy force. Armies could safely wait at castles and watch the enemy’s movements; something which a Frankish army did in 1183 at the castle of Sephorie, eventually forcing an invading force under Saladin to retreat. Interestingly, a very large Frankish army had been using this approach prior to the Battle of Hattin in 1187 but, after abandoning their position and directly attacking Saladin’s army, the army suffered a terrible defeat.
More often though, castles were used by their garrisons to mount small-scale raids into the enemy’s territory. These raids would burn crops and villages, attack trade caravans, harass enemy garrisons and place the enemy on a defensive footing. The Knights Hospitaller used their castles in northern Syria, notably Crac de Chevaliers and Margat, to conduct highly organised and effective raids in the vicinity. These raids were intended to dominate the indigenous population and maintain regular tribute payments. At Saphet too, the author of De Constructione notes that raiding parties were sent out to clear the surrounding area of Muslim inhabitants, presumably so that Christian settlers could move in. The author writes:
‘…the land from the River Jordan all the way to Damascus is left uncultivated and unoccupied because of fear of the castle of Saphet. From the castle itself are launched great attacks and plunderings and ravagings as far as Damascus…’
Saphet lies over 50 miles from Damascus and even allowing for some exaggeration here, it is clear that raiding could affect a much larger area than the immediate vicinity of a castle.
Both the defensive and offensive functions of castles created the security and conditions for economic, agricultural and social activity to flourish. The larger towns where the most important nobles resided and the bishop had his seat were the regional economic centres but castles provided more local centres for trade, industry and social life in the countryside. Their walls provided the security needed to conduct these activities and the author of De Constructione notes that after the re-construction of Saphet:
‘Merchant caravans are now progressing safely all the way from Acre to Saphet, and everyone is practising agriculture and land settlement freely.’
The presence and implied safety of a castle was also enough to persuade Christian settlers to move in and occupy land in the countryside. The Franks were keen for Christians to inhabit the countryside and begin to replace the numerically superior and sometimes hostile indigenous population. Christian settlers would not do this though without the assurance of safety which a castle provided; settlers could flee there on the sighting of raiding parties and the garrison kept the previous inhabitants from returning to their land. Castles also allowed the Franks to benefit from the duties and tolls which they demanded from traffic using the roads which they often lay near. After its construction in 1115, Montreal Castle was able to control the important caravan routes from Damascus to Egypt or the Red Sea. Other castles in this area were also able to exact tolls from passing Muslim pilgrims on their way each year for haj to Mecca or Medina.
We have seen then, how castles compensated for a severe shortage of fighting men and allowed the Franks to maintain a fragile hold on their territory. Their fortifications and advantageous situation enabled small garrisons to fend off more numerous attacking forces and also to assert control over a large area. Castles also enabled the Franks, despite the paucity of fighting men, to expand their territory and conduct aggressive operations against their neighbours. The safety and security of castles and their garrisons also created and maintained the necessary conditions for trade, agriculture and Christian settlement to flourish. Their importance then, as such was the maintenance of a tenuous state of affairs, but after 1187 and the destruction of the Frankish army at Hattin the situation was one of constant, but slow decline. Castles allowed the Franks to shore up their defences and slow the rot but once a determined enemy, with access to large reserves of fighting men invaded, the isolated garrisons of castles could only watch as successive castles fell. Castles could only allow the Franks to weather a storm which would eventually sweep them away for good.