(1)

Nûr ad-Din died 11th Shauwal 569 (15th May 1174) and, in Ramaḍân of the following year (March-April 1175), Saladin received from Baghdâd a diploma of investiture for Egypt and Syria (2). The summer of the same year witnessed another attempt to re-instate the Fâțimides, led by Kanz ad-Dawla, formerly a general in their service. He established himself at Aswân, collec

ted an army of negroes and marched on Quş. Saladin sent his brother alMalik al-'Âdil against him and the revolt was crushed with much bloodshed, 7th Safar 570 (7th September 1174) (3).

The death of Nûr ad-Dîn had left Saladin with only three possible rivals outside Egypt(1) Nûr ad-Din's son, a mere child, in Syria, (2) Nûr ad-Dîn's nephew, Seyf ad-Dîn, Prince of Moșûl, and (3) the Seljûq Sultan of Rùm, or Asia Minor. Having suppressed the revolt of Kanz ad-Dawla, Saladin decided to deal with his first possible rival, and therefore left for Syria, arriving at Damascus 30 Rabi II, 570 (27th November 1174) (). We need not enter into the details of this campaign, except to say that a brilliant victory at the Horns of Ḥama (5) left him with no Moslem rival between the Euphrates and the Nile, and that he arrived back in Egypt 16 Rabi I, 572 (22nd September 1176) after an absence of two years.

Another revolt, this time at Qeft, is said by Maqrîzî (6) to have taken place in this year. It was led by a pseudo-Dâwûd, son of al-'Âḍid, and was suppressed by al-Malik al-'Âdil Abu Bakr, the brother of Saladin. There is no

doubt that these revolts were the cause which decided Saladin to construct a citadel as a place of refuge should a Fâțimide rising ever assume really serious proportions. In seeking this solution he was no doubt guided by what he had found to be the custom in Syria, where every town of importance was

(1) BEHA AD-DIN, p. 65.

(2) ABU SHAMA, II, p. 250, quoted by CASANOVA, op. cit., p. 428.

(3) BEHA AD-DIN, pp. 65-66, and CASANOVA, op. cit., pp. 420 and 430-433.

(4) BEHA AD-DIN, p. 69.

(5) Ibid., pp. 73-74. Lane-Poole (History of Egypt, p. 200 n.) remarks that Saladin's independent sovereignty dates from this victory, for it was only after this success that he issued coins

in his own name. He had first placed the name of the Fatimide Khalif on his coins, then that of Nûr ad-Din, but never his own. When he occupied Damascus, he placed the name of Nûr ad-Din's son aş-Şâlih together with his own, on the coins which he struck there. After his victory at the Horns of Hamå he for the first time struck coins in his own name.

(6) Khitat, I, p. 233, quoted by CASANOVA, op. cit., pp. 421 and 433.

defended not only by a wall but by a citadel also, which might even serve as a place of refuge against the population of the town itself, in case of a rising. In this connection Lane-Poole remarks: It has been supposed that Saladin designed the Citadel of Cairo to protect himself against a possible insurrection of the partisans of the late dynasty. A sufficient explanation, however, is found in his early associations: every Syrian city had its citadel or fortress, and experience had shown many a time that the town might be taken whilst the citadel remained impregnable, a refuge for the people and a means of recuperation. Therefore Cairo must have a citadel too. It might soon be needed as a tower of defence against his liege-lord Nur-ed-din himself. Saladin had propitiated the King of Syria with presents from the treasures of the Fatimid palace; prayers were offered for him as sovereign lord every Friday in the mosques, above all in the great mosque of el-Hakim, which now supplanted the Azhar as the chief mosque of the city; and his name appeared on the coins struck by Saladin at Cairo. But in spite of this nominal subjection and the absence of all symbols of personal sovereignty, Saladin was virtually his own master; and supported as he was by a strong army commanded by his brothers and nephews, he was in fact King of Egypt. Nur-ed-din was well aware of this, but his difficulties with the Franks, with the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, and with various contentious rulers in Mesopotamia, left him no leisure to clip the wings of his vassal in Egypt. He could not even count upon Saladin's coöperation in the Holy War; for, whether rightly or wrongly it is difficult to decide, Saladin was convinced that if once his suzerain had the chance of seizing his person, there would be an end of his power; and nothing could induce him to venture within Nur-ed-din's reach (1). "

The suggestion that Saladin's fear of Nûr ad-Dîn played any part in the matter is untenable as there is nothing to show that Saladin had any intention of constructing a Citadel until two years after Nur ad-Din's death. On the other hand, although citadels were the rule in Syria, it is scarcely likely that Saladin would have followed such an expensive fashion, had he not already experienced three risings and felt that others were to be feared. He therefore naturally adopted the remedy with which his journeys in Syria had made him familiar (2).

Saladin, pp. 119-120.-) See also Maqrizi's account, infra, p. 117.

He decided on the construction of a Citadel, immediately after his return to Cairo. Maqrîzî says: «Saladin entered Cairo 16 Rabî I, 572 (22nd September 1176).. 76)..... and he gave orders for the construction of an enclosure to surround Cairo, Misr [i. e. Fustât] and the Citadel. He entrusted the supervision of it to the Emîr Qarâqûsh, who commenced the Citadel, the enclosing wall and the ditch which surrounds it (1). "

THE SITE.

Seen casually from Cairo, the Muqaṭṭam seems to rise abruptly in a line of cliff dominating the valley of the Nile, but actually the demarcation is not so absolute, and in reality there are several outcrops of rock, well in advance of this cliff. These outcrops vary in size, the smallest being that which appears alongside the intake tower of Ibn Tulûn's aqueduct at Basâtîn. In contrast to this we have the Rașad, or high ground to the south of Qaṣr ash-Sham', the Heights of Saint George of Napoleon's map. This ground, which on the west side ends in a cliff dominating Dair at-Tîn and the railway to Helwân, slopes away so gradually to the general level of the plain (2), the strata having been slightly tilted, that it is scarcely noticeable from the east. A second outcrop of importance forms Qal'at al-Kabsh, the site chosen by Ibn Tulûn for his mosque and the new quarter of al-Qațâ'i which he founded. What appears to be a third great outcrop is that which Saladin chose as the site of his Citadel. It is not really an outcrop, however, but a spur which has been separated from the main mass by Saladin, who purposely quarried stone

(1) Khitat, II, p. 233, 1. 32; transl. by VAN BERCHEM, Notes d'archéologie arabe, in the Journal asiatique, 8 série, t. XVII, p. 447, n. 1. (2) Maqrizi, speaking of the Rasad, says: This place is a height which dominates Râshida. to the east and Birkat al-Habash to the south, but, seen from the east, it is a plain, and one goes thither from the Qarâfa without ascending..... This height was formerly called al-Gorf; afterwards they named it the Observatory (Rasad) since al-Afdal, son of Badr al-Gamâly, established there a sphere to observe the stars." Khitat, I,

Bulletin, t. XXIII.

p. 125, Bouriant's transl., M. M. A. F. C., tome XVII, p. 363; and VAN BERCHEM, Une mosquée du temps des Fatimites, M. I. É., II, p. 612. The name Rașad is no longer in use. This high ground was probably the site of the Roman fortress which preceded Qasr ash-Sham'. See A. J. BUTLER, Ancient Coptic Churches, I, pp. 172-175, his Arab Conquest of Egypt, pp. 244-245, and his Babylon of Egypt, pp. 7-8; also GUEST, The Foundation of Fustat and the Khittahs of that town, in the J. R. A. S., 1907, pp. 61-62.

13

here; these quarries being still in use at the present day, it follows that the rock face has been steadily receding. This artificially detached spur is higher than the two great outcrops mentioned, but it does not underlie the whole of the area now occupied by the Citadel, the southern end of the latter being built on made ground. The objections raised by various authors, Maillet for example, that the site was badly chosen, since it is dominated by the Muqattam, had no validity in Saladin's time, as no missile-throwing weapon of those days had sufficient power to throw a projectile into the Citadel from the cliffs

behind it.

This site was not entirely bare; it had been chosen by Hâlìm ibn Harthmat, who was Governor of Egypt from 194-195 (810-811), for a pavilion called the Qubbat al-Hawa, in which 'Îsâ ibn Manşûr, a later Governor, died in 233 (847/8). When the Tulûnide Dynasty fell, the Qubbat al-Hawa was deliberately destroyed (2), and later on, its site was converted into a cemetery where a number of mosques arose. Before the Citadel was built there appear to have been the following, commencing at the north end (1) mosque of Sa'd adDawla, (2) mosque of Mu'izz ad-Dawla, (3) mosque of 'Addat ad-Dawla, (4) mosque of 'Abd al-Jabbâr, (5) mosque of Amin al-Mulk, (6) tomb of Lâûn, (7) mosque of the Qâdy Annabîh, and (8) tomb of Walakshi (3).

(He says: La situation du Château n'est rien moins qu'avantageuse. En effet il est tellement commandé par la montagne, dont le sommet le domine, que de là on pourroit facilement y jeter des pierres avec la fronde, & incommoder considérablement la garnison (Description de l'Égypte, p. 190).

The point where the Muqattam approaches closest to the Citadel is at the top of the ramp opposite the south-eastern angle tower (this ramp may be seen on Plate I, to left). The distance here is about 350 metres. Now although the catapults of the Greeks and Romans, which, according to Ammianus Marcellinus (Book XXIII, cap. IV), were provided with a sling at the end of their arm, could throw stones from 4 to 500 yards, it is most improbable that any of the mediaval type could do so. In the first place there

is no evidence to show that they were ever provided with a sling at the end of the arm, which, according to the experiments of Sir Ralph PyneGallwey, adds a third to the range, and secondly because it would appear that the art of making a really efficient and durable skein of sinew had already been lost. It would appear from PyneGallwey's researches and practical experiments that 300 yards was about the maximum range in the Middle Ages. See his Projectile-Throwing Engines of the Ancients, Parts I and II.

(2) MAQRizi, Khitat, II, p. 202; translated by CASANOVA, Citadelle, loc. cit., pp. 555-556; Khitat, II, p. 201, translated in DE SACY'S AbdAllatif, p. 209, and by CASANOVA, loc. cit., p. 567; LANE-POOLE, Story of Cairo, p. 65, and his History, p. 31.

(3) CASANOVA, Citadelle, pp. 557-559.

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENCLOSURE.

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE ENCLOSURE. Casanova has well said (1) that what strikes one first of all in the plan of the Citadel is that it is divided into two enclosures, absolutely distinct. The northern, which forms an irregular rectangle measuring about 560 metres from east to west and 317 metres from north to south, is joined to the other by a neck 150 metres across, the division consisting of a very thick wall terminating at either end in towers of enormous diameter. In the centre of this wall is a gateway, called the Bâb al-Qulla (2), defended by two polygonal towers (Fig. 1). To the south of this dividing line is a vast irregular enclosure, which, even to the most unpractised eye, is obviously of many periods. It is slightly smaller than the former, its extreme measurements being about 510 metres from north to south, and 270 metres from east to west. Unlike the northern enclosure, which is strengthened by many towers, both square and semi-circular, the southern consists almost entirely of curtain walls of irregular outline, almost unbroken by towers. Maqrîzî, who noticed this anomaly, expresses himself thus: This is the configuration of the Citadel: it is built on an isolated elevation, surrounded by stone walls with towers and salients, which end at the Qasr al-Ablaq (Striped Palace) (3); after that it is linked to the palaces of the Sultans by an arrangement unusual in the towers of citadels" (4),

Casanova makes the following comment : « Ainsi cette disposition anormale s'explique parfaitement par la comparaison des différents textes. Il y a une

(1) Citadelle, loc. cit., p. 573 ff.

(2) Now known as the Inner Gate.

(3) For the Qasr al-Ablaq, or Striped Palace, see MAQRIZI, Khital, II, pp. 209-210; QALQASHANDY, Wüstenfeld's transl., pp. 86 and 88; IBN Iris, Tarikh Masr, I, p. 159; MAILLET, Description de l'Égypte, p. 193; POCOCKE, Description of the East, I, p. 33; NIEBUHR, Voyage en Arabie (éd. 1877), I, p. 194; the Description de l'Égypte, État moderne, XVIII, 2° partie, pp. 351352; WILKINSON, Topography of Thebes, p. 306; RHONE, L'Égypte (2 éd.), p. 75-77; CASANOVA,

Citadelle, pp. 635-641, and MARGOLIOUTH, Cairo, Jerusalem and Damascus, pp. 54-55. It was built in Sha'ban 713 (November-December 1313), and, according to the remains of it shown on Napoleon's map (see my Fig. 11), must have occupied the southern half of the present military prison, and part of the carriage drive which serves as an approach to the mosque of Muhammad 'Aly.

(*) Khitat, II, p. 204, 1. 33; quoted by CASANOVA, op. cit., p. 576.