An Introduction to Crusader Castles - Part 3
The Architecture and the Master Builders
So far, we have looked at some of the basic reasons why a castle in the Levant was built, what influenced the building, their purpose and the difference in styles between a defensive and offensive structure. Castle design is driven by many external-influencing factors, and strategical and tactical problems changed their style. The Crusading castles were regarded as masterpieces in the art of military fortification, and this architecture was reflected in later castles built across Europe.
During the infancy of the First Crusade, Western Europe saw a change in the structure of castles, from wood and earth to stone. But this wasn’t the most notable difference. The development of the Norman keep was used primarily for passive defence. As long as food was in sufficient supply and disease did not weaken those within, they could remain in safety until a relieving force arrived. A key point here is to remember that siege equipment was not sufficiently developed to cause much disturbance to those sheltered behind several feet of masonry. And with that, the keep became an integral part of one of the most feared sights on the battlefields of the Far East… the mounted knight. The charge of a heavily armoured knight was a new and, frankly, terrifying weapon. It was decisive in the siege of Antioch in 1098 and throughout the whole history of the medieval Crusades; it was rare for a Muslim force to resist the full weight of a Crusading charge. But these heavily armoured warriors could not be on the battlefield all the time. And when resting, it was the Norman keep that provided the perfect accommodation to withdraw to.
The lack of wood suitable for beams and roofing meant that these keeps weren’t as high as those in Europe, but they were still impressive. The Crusaders often placed the keeps at the most vulnerable point of the castles’ defences, where the massive walls would have the greatest effect. Where the castle was sited on flat ground, and susceptible to attack from numerous sides, the keep was sited in the centre of the walls, as at Belvoir and Chastel Rouge. Archers could therefore direct their attacks at any side of the curtain wall.
The first Crusaders must have realised that the Byzantine fortifications were built in two very different styles. On one hand, the sophistication and enormous walls and towers they saw at Constantinople and Antioch impressed them. With oblique entrances, towers that projected from the curtain walls and double banked ditches, this was evidence that the Byzantines were architecturally cunning. These walls and towers were often manned and ultimately defended by relatively unskilled men and they needed all the help they could from the defences they protected. Further across Asia Minor, Byzantine fortifications took on another form… the isolated castle, sited strategically and to both house an army and to police an area of land. The castles had to hold a large army, and therefore it is not too surprising to learn that often the layout was not too dissimilar to the camp of a Roman legion. Yet the Byzantines adopted this style to meet their own requirements, and built to the shape of the surrounding land. One feature of many of these castles was a ditch. And it was the Frankish architects that took this a step further and created ditches of epic proportions, such as that at Saone, but also at Chastel Pelerin, Kerak and Beaufort. With a relatively simple wall plan, the main structures here weren’t massive gatehouses, but towers… and lots of them.
One of the developments of Crusader castles was the move from square towers to round towers and it is regarded as an important milestone in castle architecture. But one aspect often overlooked is, in many ways, more important than the shape of the tower. The extent of projection from the curtain wall is arguably a major feature. In simple terms, a tower is primarily used to provide flanking fire, and whatever method of attack an army were to choose, the attackers must approach the castle walls. Where castles had towers that boldly projected from these walls, defenders found themselves able to actively defend with arrows, slings and other missiles, often boosting the morale of the garrison within.
The Crusading armies relied heavily on the Frankish knight. Yet by the start of the thirteenth century it was the archer that increased in importance. Evidence of this is apparent in the larger number of loopholes in Frankish castles. The Byzantines and Armenians were sparing in this feature, preferring to fight from on top of the castle walls, and this suited the Crusaders at first. But the Franks saw the potential and continued to develop loopholes to the point of obsession. The finest example of this can be found at Crac de Chevalier and Til Hamdoun in Cilicia. The firepower directed against the enemy must have been frightening.
Another small but critical development was the bent entrance. Rather than a simple gate with a straight approach, they forced the attacker to make two right turns, one approaching the gate and one again inside the tower, which often housed the gate. This subtle approach not only confused the attacker but also made an attack on the gate difficult, as the entrance could not accommodate too many besiegers. Moreover, use of a battering ram was usually futile, and also it was vulnerable to fire from above. As the thirteenth century progressed the bent entrance was elaborated once again, as seen once more at Crac de Chevalier in Syria. The entrance was covered with a portcullis, four gates with machiolation and loopholes where the garrison could fire at their attackers in a confined space.
Not all the Crusading castles embodied every new feature and defensive subtlety, but all are distinguishable from the simpler castles of an earlier period. In particular, they exemplify the idea of multiple defence. With concentric castle design, the epitome of architecture and defensive features could be explored.
Researched and written by Sulis*
* denotes a former staff member.