Here we come to the final phase of Caesarea’s medieval biography. During the summer of 1264 Baibars besieged the territory surrounding Caesarea and ‘Atlit. On February 27, 1265, Baibars and his army encircled Caesarea and attacked (Ibn al-Furāt 1971 II: 88).
What ensued was a ruthless performance of force (see section 2.2), effectively turning King Louis IX’s walls from an object of military strength and apotropaic protection to that of defeat and Mamluk victory.
5.7.1 OBJECT OF FRANKISH DEFEAT AND MAMLUK VICTORY
The events surrounding Caesarea’s demise are recounted in the Tārīkh al-Duwal wa’l- Mulūk, written by Nāsir al-Dīn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rhmān al-Hanafī (known as Ibn al-Furāt). Ibn al-Furāt (734–807 A.H./1334–1405 A.D.) was born in Cairo and although he was from a good family the only important position he held was as a khatīb (one who gives the address in the mosque) at the local madrasa in Old Cairo (Ibn al-Furāt 1971: 261;
Massoud 2007: 34). His work, the Tārīkh al-Duwal, was used heavily by historians including al-Maqrīzī, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Qādī Shuhba, al-Jawharī, Ibn Iyās, and possibly Ibn Khaldūn, al-‘Aynī and al-Malatī (Massoud 2007: 34).The backbone of Ibn al-Furāt’s work is Ibn Duqmaq’s Nuzhat al-Ansām. According to Massoud (2007: 36), Ibn al-Furāt, for the most part, copied Ibn Duqmāq’s text word-for-word or slightly changed the wording. But despite this, the text is a wealth of knowledge and provides lots of in-depth additional information, possibly due to the inclusion of non-written or verbal sources (Massoud 2007: 36).
The siege and destruction of Caesarea were enacted like a three-act play. Upon their arrival, Baibars and his army attacked immediately. As Ibn al-Furāt recounts:
Baibars immediately encircled the city and the Muslims attacked it, throwing themselves into its trenches; using iron horse pegs together with tethers and halters on to which they clung, they climbed up from all sides and set up their banners there. The city gates were burnt and its defences torn away, while the inhabitants fled to the citadel. The Sultan sent letters with the good news to the regions and to the Atabek Faris al-Din. He then set up his mangonels against the citadel (Ibn al-Furāt 1971 II: 70).
Every step of Baibars’s systematic siege is done in a very deliberate and visual fashion.
The Mamluks begin by climbing the walls and displaying their banners, thus establishing and displaying their control of the entire line of the city walls immediately. Their capture of the city’s fortifications is then reinforced through the burning of the gates. If the Franks cannot see the Mamluk banners, they are sure to see the fires. Not only would the flames be more obvious than the banners, but they would serve as a visual and physical
reminder that escape through the city walls was no longer an option.
It is at this point in the siege when there is a clear shift in the city wall’s function. Through Baibars’s use of the wall in his very visual performance, he is turning the defences into an advertisement for his victory. But more than this, Baibars has turned the city walls, an object that previously demonstrated monumental power and apotropaic protection, into an object of Frankish defeat.
During the second act of this play of destruction, Baibars pushes forward with the siege:
The Muslims continued to attack [the citadel], bombarding it with their mangonels. At one moment the Sultan [Baibars]
would be shooting arrows from the top of a church in front of the citadel, at another, he would mount and plunge into the sea waves to fight…The Sultan remained steadfastly at the front of the fighting. He did not go out to his dihlīz [tent or pavilion acting as a sort of administrative headquarters] but stayed in the church with a company of crossbowmen, shooting away and preventing the Franks from climbing to the top of the citadel (Ibn al-Furāt 1971 II: 70–71, 259).
During these stages of the battle, Baibars focuses his attention on Caesarea’s citadel. He orchestrates the assault from a church. This presumably refers to the Cathedral of Saint Peter, which occupies an elevated position and offers a vantage point over the city and its surrounding defences (see section 5.4.5 and figure 5.59). Baibars increases the terror through the use of mangonels and arrows, constricting the Franks’ movements within the citadel.
Caesarea’s end comes just six days after Baibars first laid siege to the city. Ibn al-Furāt describes the final scenes:
Then, on the night of Thursday, half-way through Jumada I, the month already mentioned (5 March), the Franks came and surrendered the citadel with its contents. The Muslims climbed up to it from the walls, burned its gates and entered it from above and below, while the call to morning prayer was made from its top. The Sultan went up to it and then shared out the city between his emirs, his personal officers, his mamlukes and his halqa, after which he began the work of demolition. He dismounted and, taking a pick-axe in his hand, he started on this work himself. Seeing him, the Muslims imitated him, setting to work themselves, while he took part in this himself with his own hands, getting a coating of dust (Ibn al-Furāt 1971 II: 71).
In this final act, the battle ends the way that it began with the citadel’s gates being set on fire. Baibars and his army enter the castle from all entrances, completing their conquering performance through prayer and lastly by demolition. Whether or not Baibars actually took part in the city’s demolition, the chronicle stresses his involvement throughout the performance until the very end. Not only did Baibars personally take part, getting dirty in the process, but he also provided an example for the rest to follow. In so doing, Ibn al- Furāt is insuring that Baibars receives full recognition for his triumphal victory. It is interesting to note that even though the chronicle is adamant that Baibars’s destruction was complete (Ibn al-Furāt 1971 II: 72), enough of the fortifications remained to justify a second demolition in 1291 by Sultan al-Ashraf Khalīl. Considering that substantial ruins still remain on the site today it would appear that the complete physical destruction of the city’s defences was not the main goal. I argue that Baibars goal was to assert his
dominance over the Franks as well as to disable the defences rather than erase all trace of them (see section 6.4).
Therefore, King Louis IX’s apotropaic monumental walls, walls that were an object of Frankish monetary wealth, power, and both physical and magical strength, were reduced to rubble through a visual and destructive performance. The physical strength of the Frankish walls were thus negated and turned into an object of Mamluk victory. Therefore, through an execution of power Baibars effectively razes (or executed) Caesarea’s defences.