(Ebook) Crusader Castles in the Holy Land 1097–1192

by David Nicolle ISBN 9781841767154, 1841767158 Pdf

Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/crusader-castles-in-the-holy-
land-10971192-58433856

★★★★★
4.9 out of 5.0 (86 reviews )

Instant PDF Download

ebooknice.com
 (Ebook) Crusader Castles in the Holy Land 1097–1192 by David
Nicolle ISBN 9781841767154, 1841767158 Pdf Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebooknice.com
to discover even more!

(Ebook) Crusader Castles in the Holy Land 1192 - 1302 by

Nicolle, David ISBN 9781841768274, 1841768278

https://ebooknice.com/product/crusader-castles-in-the-holy-
land-1192-1302-58433870

(Ebook) Crusader Castles in Cyprus, Greece and the Aegean

1191–1571 by David Nicolle, Adam Hook (Illustrator) ISBN
9781841769769, 1841769762

https://ebooknice.com/product/crusader-castles-in-cyprus-greece-and-the-
aegean-11911571-1964026

(Ebook) The Normans: Warrior Knights and their Castles by

Christopher Gravett & David Nicolle ISBN 9781846030888,
1846030889

https://ebooknice.com/product/the-normans-warrior-knights-and-their-
castles-33315892

(Ebook) Crusader Castles of the Teutonic Knights (2): The stone

castles of Latvia and Estonia 1185–1560 by Stephen Turnbull,
Peter Dennis (Illustrator) ISBN 9781841767123, 9781849080187,
1841767123, 1849080186
https://ebooknice.com/product/crusader-castles-of-the-teutonic-
knights-2-the-stone-castles-of-latvia-and-estonia-11851560-1379106
(Ebook) First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars by Geoffrey Regan
ISBN 9781403961518, 1403961514

https://ebooknice.com/product/first-crusader-byzantium-s-holy-wars-12199004

(Ebook) The Archaeology of the Holy Land by Jodi Magness ISBN

9780521124133, 0521124131

https://ebooknice.com/product/the-archaeology-of-the-holy-land-10000284

(Ebook) The Crusades by David Nicolle ISBN 9781841761794,

1841761796

https://ebooknice.com/product/the-crusades-927790

(Ebook) Crusader Gold by David Gibbins ISBN 0755324234

https://ebooknice.com/product/crusader-gold-2100264

(Ebook) Templars and Hospitallers as Professed Religious in the

Holy Land by Jonathan Riley-Smith ISBN 9780268040581, 0268040583

https://ebooknice.com/product/templars-and-hospitallers-as-professed-
religious-in-the-holy-land-5534886
FOR021outer.qxd:FOR021outer 29/8/08 14:51 Page 1

FORTRESS • 21 Design, technology and history of key fortresses, strategic

positions and defensive systems
CRUSADER CASTLES

FORTRESS • 21
IN THE HOLY LAND
CRUSADER CASTLES
IN THE HOLY LAND
1097–1192
1097–1192

CRUSADER CASTLES IN THE HOLY LAND 1097–1192

The Crusaders who arrived in the Middle East in the late-11th century
brought with them their own traditions of military architecture, but it
was not long before their defensive constructions began to reflect a broad
array of local influences. Most early Crusader fortifications were relatively
small, and often relied on the existing natural and defensive features of
a site. The basic forms comprised freestanding towers, castra, and hilltop
and spur-castles, but urban centres, religious sites and rural dwellings
were also fortified. From the 1160s, bigger, stronger and more expensive
castles began to appear, largely in response to developments in Islamic
siege weaponry. This title examines the early fortifications erected in the
Middle East.

Full colour artwork Photographs Unrivalled detail Colour maps

OSPREY US $18.95 / CAN $22.00

I S B N 978-1-84176-715-4
PUBLISHING
5 1 8 9 5
DAVID NICOLLE

9 781841 767154
OSPREY

WWW.OSPREYPUBLISHING.COM DAVID NICOLLE ILLUSTRATED BY ADAM HOOK

FOR021title.qxd:Layout 1 4/9/08 11:46 Page 1

FORTRESS • 21

CRUSADER CASTLES
IN THE HOLY LAND
1097–1192

DAVID NICOLLE ILLUSTRATED BY ADAM HOOK

Series editors Marcus Cowper and Nikolai Bogdanovic
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:48 Page 3

Contents

Introduction 4

Chronology 8

Design and development 9

The types of Crusader fortification • Methods of construction

The principles of defence 25

A tour of five Crusader castles 28

Ravendel • Saone • Gibelcar • Belvoir • Le Vaux Moise

Feudal, religious and urban defences 37

Feudal tower building • Royal and large-scale castles • The fortification of religious centres
Urban defences • Fortified rural villages and houses

The fortifications at war 49

Strategic roles • A place of refuge • La Cave de Sueth • Vadum Jacob, Saone and Bourzay

The fate of the fortifications 56

Visiting the fortifications today 57

Turkey • Syria • Lebanon • Israel and the Palestinian territories • Jordan

Further reading 62

Glossary 63

Index 64
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 4

Introduction

The First Crusade Crusader castles and the fortifications of cities that the Crusaders once
occupied conjure up images of great fortresses dominating the landscape, or
In 1096 a remarkable ‘armed walled cities defying the wrath of surrounding Islamic states. In reality,
pilgrimage’ set off from Western
fortifications that were taken over, repaired, extended or newly built by the
Europe with apparently ill-
defined objectives. These Crusaders who erupted into the Middle East at the close of the 11th century
included supporting the existed in a great variety of sizes and styles. Furthermore, most of the towering
Byzantine Empire, which had, for castles whose photographs illustrate histories of the Crusades actually survive
two decades, being attempting in a 13th-century or even a post-Crusader Islamic form. Fortifications dating
to recover vast territories lost from the 12th century, when the Crusader States were still a significant military
to the Muslim Turks in what is force, are harder to find. Some exist as fragments, walls or towers embedded
now Turkey, and with hazey
within later castles or city walls. Others are little more than shattered ruins or
notions of regaining the Holy
City of Jerusalem from Islamic foundations in areas where later powers felt little need to maintain such
rule. By 1099 these aims had fortifications. The remaining examples have all been altered by later occupants.
crystalised into the capture of The First Crusaders, who captured Jerusalem in 1099, came to the Middle
Jerusalem and Palestine, closely East with their own established ideas about military architecture. For most of
followed by the creation of a them a castle was a fortification and a residence, though several variations had
series of so-called Crusader
already emerged. The 10th and 11th centuries had seen the development of
States in what are now parts of
Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, sophisticated European timber fortifications, even in areas where good building
Palestine and Jordan – a process stone was available. This may have reflected a lack of sufficient skilled masons,
which had, in fact, already begun. but it is important to note that, within Europe, wooden fortresses were not
For a while many of those necessarily weaker than those of stone.
Crusaders who remained in the Although the Carolingian Empire of Western and Central Europe had not
Middle East, and numerous
been noted for its military architecture, it had built ‘royal forts’ at strategic
others who followed in their
footsteps, envisaged the points. These had much in common with late-Roman forts, though some also
continuing expansion of included relatively tall and sturdy towers. Partly as a result of the Scandinavian
Crusader-held territory, perhaps Viking, Islamic Saracen and Magyar Hungarian raids during the 9th and 10th
resulting in the entire centuries, the imperial or royal ban on members of the nobility constructing
destruction of the Islamic
religion and its replacement by
Christianity. In the event the
remarkable success of the First
Crusade would never be
repeated, and the warrior elite
that dominated the four
Crusader States of Edessa,
Antioch, Tripoli and Jerusalem
had to build ever more
formidable castles to defend
their territories.

The donjon or main keep of the

Cilician castle at Anavarza was
added to the fortifications by the
Crusaders between 1098 and 1108,
before the castle was rebuilt by the
Armenian kings T’oros and Leon II.
4 (Gertrude Bell)
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 5

fortresses without authorisation gradually

waned. At the same time the crumbling Roman
curtain-walls of many towns were repaired.
Small rural fortifications, built in increasing
numbers, became characteristic of 11th-century
France, and it was here that the motte and bailey
castle emerged as a distinctive new form.
However, during the 11th century, formidable
stone castles and towers or keeps also appeared
in some regions which had until then been
dominated by earth and timber defences.
Further south, stone and brick had remained the
traditional materials when constructing
fortifications. Here there is evidence that some
existing stone halls were strengthened and
heightened to become prototypes of the tall,
freestanding donjon tower or keep, which
became characteristic of much 12th-century
Western European non-urban fortification. At
the same time there was increasing interest in
using naturally defensible sites such as rocky
outcrops. Fortified churches similarly became a
feature of southern France, an area from which
so many participants of the First Crusade would
come. Normans would play a very prominent
role in the First Crusade, and Normandy and the
Anglo-Norman Kingdom of England were in
some respects ahead of the rest of France in
matters of fortification (see Fortress 13 and 18,
Norman Stone Castles). In fact the Normans were
particularly closely associated with the new
motte and bailey style of earth and timber castle.
Men from Germany and other parts of what
was then simply called The Empire also played
a significant role, but slightly different
traditions and new styles of fortification had
been developing in their homelands during the
10th and 11th centuries. From the late-10th
century onwards a carefully planned system of
provincial fortresses had been erected to
control newly conquered Slav-inhabited
territories along the eastern frontiers. Yet another series of developments could The Principality of Antioch, c .1137.
be seen south of the Alps, in Italy. Here cities like Rome had tried to maintain
the impressive fortifications inherited from the Roman Empire. Meanwhile the
military architecture that emerged in several parts of the country during the
11th century was often technologically more sophisticated than that seen
north of the Alps, probably because of the close cultural, political, economic
and military proximity of the Byzantine and Islamic worlds, where the art of
fortificiation was even more advanced.
The First Crusaders may have marched east with their own varied traditions
of military architecture, but when they reached the Byzantine Empire and then
the Islamic states of the Middle East they found themselves facing some of the
most massive, sophisticated and expensive fortifications outside China. At this
stage the Western European Crusaders were on the offensive, and very rarely
felt the need to erect strong fortifications. However, as soon as they had carved
out what are now known as the Crusader States, they began building and were
influenced by the military architecture they saw around them. 5
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 6

The County of Edessa at its greatest extent, c.1140

Eu
Malatya

ph
r at
e

s
Albistan
Babalu

CILICIAN K’akhta Gargar

ARMENIA Amida
Hisn Mansur

Behesni

Maras Qaysun Sumaysat

Trush
Ra’ban
Jamlin

Ranculat Tal Guran

Duluk Tal Mawzan
Edessa
Burj Al-Rasas Kesas
Bira
Aintab
Saruj
Turbessel
PRINCIPALITY OF ANTIOCH

Ravendel
Harran Ras al-‘ayn
Tal Khalid
N
Quris
Asas
Manbij

Aleppo
Main castles and citadels
Saruj Main seigneuries of 12th century, except
Count’s own domain (after Amouroux-Mourad)
Main roads
Rivers (including seasonal)

0 25 miles
Eu

ph
rates 0 50 km

The south-eastern bastion of the

castle of Bile (Birecik) overlooking a
crossing of the River Euphrates
from the left bank of the river.
Because of its strategic importance
the castle includes elements from
the Byzantine, Arab, Crusader and
later periods. Most of what is visible
seems to be Mamluk, though built
on earlier foundations, with a
6 roughly similar ground plan.
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 7

The Kingdom of Jerusalem, c.1160 The Second Crusade

In 1144 Iman al-Din Zangi, the
COUNTY OF Muslim ruler of Mosul and
TRIPOLI Aleppo, reconquered the
strongly fortified city of Edessa
(Urfa) – the capital of a
Beirut Crusader state (or County) of
Mont the same name. Zangi’s success
MEDITERRANEAN Glavien
was the culmination of many
Cave de
SEA Belhacem Tyron campaigns in which the fortunes
Sidon of war had sometimes favoured
Damascus the Crusaders, and sometimes
their Muslim rivals. Although the
Belfort
Castel-Neuf County of Edessa would survive
TYRE Banyas in a reduced form for several
Chastelez more years, the fall of this, the
Scandelion Toron
Safad first Crusader ‘capital’ city, sent
Castellum shock waves across Western
ACRE Regis
Lake European Christendom and
G a lilee Tiberias
Haifa resulted in the Second Crusade.
Tiberius Unlike the First Crusade, the
Le Destroit Nazareth Belvoir Second would be a massive,
Cave de Sueth
La Feve highly organised, military
Caymont
Baysan expedition led by European
Caesarea rulers of considerable power
R i v e r J o rda n

Caco and status. It supposedly had the

Calansue Sebaste clear strategic aim of restoring
Castel Rouge NABLUS
the fortunes of the Latin
Arsur Christian or Crusader States in
Mirabel
Jaffa the Middle East. This operation
was on an unprecedented scale,
Ramlah Amman yet resulted in total failure and
humiliation outside the walls of
Ibelin
JERUSALEM the ancient Islamic city of
Ascalon Blanchegarde Damascus. Here, the failure of
Bethgibelin the Second Crusade’s attempt to
Hebron
Dead capture what is now the capital
Gaza Sea of Syria shattered what
DARUM
remained of any Western
European Crusader myth of
ain

Karak military supremacy – at least

urd

amongst their Muslim

ejo

neighbours.
ltr
Ou

Tafila

Shawbak N
Vaux Moise
Hormuz Celle

Main castles and citadels

Sidon Main seigneuries
TYRE Royal domain
Main roads
Rivers (including seasonal)
0 50 miles

Ayla 0 50 km

7
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 8

Chronology

1096 Departure of the First Crusade for the 1188–89 Crusader castles in southern Jordan captured by
Middle East. Saladin.
1097–98 Siege of Antioch by the First Crusade. 1189 The Third Crusade begins. King Guy of Jerusalem
1098 Establishment of the County of Edessa by Baldwin besieges Acre, held by Saladin’s garrison.
of Boulogne. 1191–92 Third Crusade retakes Acre. Saladin is defeated at
1099 First Crusade captures Jerusalem. the battle of Arsuf. Crusaders fail to reach
1100 Crusaders capture Sidon. Jerusalem, and agree a peace treaty with Saladin.
1101 Crusaders capture Arsuf; start of the Crusader
siege of Tripoli.
1107 Crusaders capture al-Wu’aira in southern Jordan.
1109 Tripoli surrenders to the Crusaders after an
eight-year siege.
1114 Maras is massively damaged by earthquake. The County of Tripoli, c .1130.
1115 Muslim army attacks Crusader-held Afamia; Muslim
army takes Crusader-held Kafr Tab.
1115–16 Crusader campaign in southern Jordan.
1119 Muslim army attacks and takes the Crusader-held
Atharib.
1124 Crusaders capture Tyre.
1129 Crusaders and Kingdom of Jerusalem
attack Damascus.
1136 Frontier territory or March granted to the
Templars in the Amanus Mountains of
north-western Syria.
1144 Crusader-ruled city of Edessa retaken by Zangi;
Count Raymond II of Tripoli grants the
Hospitallers substantial territories around the
Buqai’ah valley.
1147 Second Crusade is launched.
1148 Second Crusade defeated outside Damascus.
1151 Last Crusader castle in the County of Edessa
surrenders to Nur al-Din.
1153 Crusaders capture Ascalon.
1157 Serious earthquake damages fortifications in
north-western Syria.
1163–69 Five invasions of Egypt by the Crusader Kingdom
of Jerusalem.
1170 Earthquake damages fortification in north-western
Syria; Saladin captures the Crusader castle of Ayla.
1177 Crusaders defeat Saladin at the battle of
Mont Gisard.
1179 Saladin captures and destroys the partially built
Crusader castle of Vadum Jacob.
1183 Campaign by Reynald of Châtillon, Lord of
Oultrejourdain, in northern Arabia and the Red
Sea area.
1187 Saladin defeats Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem at
the battle of Hattin, retakes Jerusalem and most of
the Kingdom of Jerusalem. His siege of
8 Crusader-held Tartus is unsuccessful.
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 9

Design and development

In the 19th and early-20th centuries, historians of the Crusades believed that
Crusader military architecture was most strongly influenced by that of the
Byzantine Empire. Shortly before World War I, a student from Oxford
University conducted field research in the Asiatic provinces of the Ottoman
Empire: he then returned to write a thesis in which he argued that the
designers of Crusader castles largely based their ideas upon what was currently
being built in Western Europe. This student’s name was T.E. Lawrence, soon to
be better known as Lawrence of Arabia. His thesis eventually influenced the
next generation of historians of Crusader architecture, but neither they nor
Lawrence seriously considered the influence of Islamic traditions of
fortification. This idea developed more recently and today it is widely accepted
that the military architecture of the Crusader States reflected a broad array of
influences, in addition to the inventiveness of those who actually designed it.
The late Nikita Elisséeff, who worked for much of his life in Damascus,
maintained that Byzantine forms of military architecture in northern Syria
were soon added to the Western European design concepts of the early
Crusaders. Within a few decades these newcomers were also learning from their
Muslim neighbours, especially in making greater use of topographical features
to strengthen a fortified site. More recently the Israeli scholar Ronnie
Ellenblum highlighted the fact that Crusader castles were built to deal with The rock-cut fosse and most of the
specific military situations or threats, and that their designers drew upon what fortifications of Edessa (Urfa) were
seemed most suitable in the circumstances. completed before the arrival of the
In the early-12th century, each of the newly established Crusader states Crusaders. However the Crusader
County of Edessa maintained these
found itself in a different situation. The Principality of Antioch, for example,
defences in a good state of repair
was adjacent to the Armenian states of Cilicia, which evolved into the and also carried out modifications.
Kingdom of Cilician or Lesser Armenia. Here fortifications ranged from tiny Note the rock-cut stone pier in
hilltop outposts to major garrison fortresses, while Armenian architects the moat that originally supported
favoured half-round towers that protruded from a curtain-wall far enough to a drawbridge.
permit archers to enfilade the enemy. Such design ideas
influenced castle building in the Principality of Antioch.
Furthermore Antioch attracted few Western European settlers
and hence relied to a greater extent on military elites of
Armenian, Greek and Syrian origin who may also have
influenced the design of local fortifications. The mountainous
character of the Principality of Antioch and the County of
Tripoli clearly encouraged experimental and daring design
ideas, though the castles themselves ranged from very simple,
almost rustic structures to huge hilltop fortresses. Meanwhile
building techniques ranged from a typically Byzantine use of
small masonry an bricks within one structure, to mixtures of
Byzantine, Armenian, Western European and soon also
Syrian-Islamic methods of both cutting and shaping stones –
each of which had their own distinctive. Sometimes variations
in ways of mixing cement and mortar also reflected different
cultural influences.
Crusader castle building quickly grew more sophisticated. For
example the building of concentric castles first took place in the
late-1160s, and although the idea had been around for some
time, concentric castles certainly appeared in the Crusader
States before they did in Western Europe. On the other hand, 9
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 10

most early structures remained relatively small while

the vast sums of money and effort expended on larger
and more elaborate fortifications were characteristic of
the 13th rather than the 12th century.
One ‘supposed’ characteristic of Crusader castles
was a lack of timber in their construction, with this
being attributed to a lack of suitable timber in the areas
where they were built. However, abundant excellent
timber was available in neighbouring Cilician
Armenia. Although the deforestation of the Kingdom
of Jerusalem may have been well advanced by the time
of the Crusades, suitable large baulks of timber were
available in the mountains of Lebanon and on Mount
Carmel. The situation was better in the County of
Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch and the northern
regions of the County of Edessa. Furthermore Western
Europeans probably enjoyed a technological
advantage over their Middle Eastern foes, not only in
their tradition of timber architecture but in their
logistical ability to transport large timbers over long
distances.
Consequently it is hardly surprising to find that in
reality early Crusader castles made considerable use of
wood. Timber roofs, floors, balconies, stairs, ladders and
non-defensive storage buildings, barracks or stables
were commonplace. Wood was also used for internal
fittings, though these do not survive. Other evidence
suggests that the newly settled Crusaders rapidly
At al-Wu’aira the builders of the adopted local architectural traditions by being sparing in their use of timber,
Crusader castle widened and even in castles erected in relatively well-wooded regions. Of course, it was not
straightened an existing rocky gorge simply the availability of wood that mattered: it was the availability of suitably
rather than excavating a fosse from large pieces of timber. Recent archaeological excavations at the unfinished castle
the rock. The anvil-shaped outcrop
of Vadum Jacob also show that timber was used for scaffolding and in other
in the centre of the picture was
then pierced with a tunnel to make construction processes, though the builders did take advantage of alternative
an outer gate. The stone steps and techniques where possible – for example the use of temporary earthen ramps to
bridge that now link this rock bring uilding materials to the top of a wall as it was being built.
outcrop to the castle on the right During the 12th century, the experience of local builders skilled in the
and the other side of the gorge on construction of substantial stone vaulting, broad arches, domes and other
the left are modern. In the 12th
complex load-bearing structures became available to the conquerors: as a
century there would have been a
drawbridge and a removable result, indigenous Syro-Palestinian architectural influence became more
wooden bridge. apparent in many aspects of Crusader architecture. In military architecture, the
most significant developments were the placing of entrances beneath and
through towers rather than through curtain-walls, the construction of
defensive towers that protruded further from a wall to permit enfilading fire,
and the use of a major tower or keep not as a final redoubt but as the fulcrum
of an overall defensive scheme. Some of these concepts were rare or almost
unknown in Western European fortification at the time. A further increase in
the size and projection of towers, reflecting an increasing use of heavy
counterweight stone-throwing mangonels would be a feature of the early-13th
century. On the other hand the use of heavily embossed masonry as a means
of making such missiles strike no more than a glancing blow was soon seen.
The inability of several Crusader fortifications to withstand enemy sieges
became apparent in the 1160s and 1170s. Previously Islamic armies had relied
on traditional methods of siege warfare, with direct assaults, blockades, mining
and the limited use of relatively light stone-throwing artillery: although Islamic
armies had access to superior siege technologies, a limited number of men
10 skilled in heavy carpentry seems to have precluded the greater use of
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 11

The citadel of the castle of Gibelet

(Jubayl) consists of a four-sided
enclosure with corner towers, with
a separate keep in the centre. It was
built by the Crusaders early in the
12th century, and although changes
were made in the 13th century the
overall character of Gibelet’s
fortifications remains simple.
(D. Pringle)

Christian chroniclers

sophisticated artillery. In the 1160s, however, things began to change and a The most important of the
Western European chroniclers
process was set in motion that would eventually result in the Mamluk
for the Crusaders and Crusader
Sultanate’s staggering number of huge timber-framed stone-throwing States of this period, about
machines, which reached their peak in the late-13th century. Meanwhile the whom we often know little
military setbacks suffered by the Crusader States resulted in the construction of more than their names, were
bigger, stronger and notably more expensive castles. The owners of these new Raymond of Aguilers, Fulcher of
castles were not necessarily any richer, however; a fact which contributed to Chartres, Abbot Ekkehard of
the rising military orders being asked to take over several castles because they Aura, Albert of Aachen, William
of Tyre, and Walter the
were better able to garrison, maintain and defend them. Chancellor. Raymond of Aguilers
There was reduced reliance on a donjon and a greater emphasis on an was a Crusader from central
enceinte or curtain-wall strengthened by towers. Yet there was also a tendency France who became chaplain to
to increase the number of existing defensive features whilst shying away from Count Raymond of Toulouse
incorporating new ones. Hence walls, towers, and fosse ditches were multiplied during the First Crusade. Fulcher
while the natural defensive features of a site were enhanced by excavation and of Chartres was another
Frenchman who took part in the
what could almost be called ‘landscaping’. Walls became thicker and the
First Crusade in the company of
originally Islamic concept of the talus (an additional sloping front) along the Count Stephen of Blois. Abbot
lower parts of walls and towers was adopted. Ancient stone columns were Ekkehard was a German cleric
added to walls as horizontal bonding, tying together the carefully laid outer who travelled east with a force
and inner layers through a core filled with rubble and mortar. The number of of German Crusaders in 1101.
embrasures for archery or observation was increased and single or Albert of Aachen never himself
went to the Holy Land but for
superimposed horizontal defensive galleries, again with loopholes, became
centuries his very detailed
more common. Various forms of projecting machicolation appeared, which history, written around 1130,
permitted arrows to be shot at, or missiles to be dropped on, enemies beneath. was regarded as amongst the
Both Byzantine and Islamic fortifications had, of course, made use of most authoritative. Archbishop
machicolations long before the Crusaders arrived. Meanwhile towers began to William of Tyre was certainly the
get bigger and more closely spaced, though the massive projecting artillery greatest of Crusader
chroniclers, and although he
bastion towers of the early-13th century had not yet appeared.
wrote late in the 12th century,
long after many of the events he
The types of Crusader fortification described, he lived in the Latin
There were several basic forms of what can loosely be called Crusader east and fully understood the
fortifications. However, there was considerable overlap between them and no complexities of the region.
clear line of development even within these forms. The simplest was the free- Walter the Chancellor was
or almost freestanding tower, an idea brought to the Middle East by the probably chancellor to Prince
Roger of Antioch. The principal
Crusaders. Single towers were found in many areas, most commonly in the
Arab and Byzantine Greek
more settled regions. The second was the castrum or enclosure within a chroniclers will be described in
fortified wall, usually rectangular with corner towers: these too were more futures volumes in this series.
common in settled areas. The double-castrum was a development of this simple 11
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 12

castrum and could be seen as the earliest manifestation of the concentric castle:
these tended to be built in more vulnerable frontier regions. Thirdly, the
Crusaders used hilltop and spur-castles, the latter being sited upon a
promontory attached to a hill by a narrow neck of land that could be cut off
by a fosse or ditch. These were also common in unsettled areas. A fourth and
characteristically Western Europe form of fortification has recently been added
to this list: the motte and bailey castle. Originally of earth and timber, it was
not previously thought to have been used in the Middle East.
A more sophisticated typology has been suggested by Adrian Boas who
subdivides the towers into isolated towers, towers with outworks, and donjons
as parts of larger castles. Castra are subdivided into simple castra, ‘castrum and
keep’ castles that combined a castrum with a main tower or keep, and
‘defended’ castra with additional outworks. Double castra or early concentric
castles, hilltop and spur-castles remained separate categories.

Towers
At least 75 tower castles have been identified in the Crusader Kingdom of
Jerusalem alone, and they are far more numerous than small-scale fortifications
from the pre-Crusader and post-Crusader periods. Although defensive towers
had previously been attached to some earlier monasteries in this area, they
were rare. Nor was there anything comparable in previous Byzantine,
A selection of tower castles. Armenian or Islamic military architecture. The majority of these Crusader
1. Casal des Plains, Yazur towers date from the 12th century and while some were related to early feudal
(after Leach).
lordships, several were later integrated into more elaborate fortifications.
2. Tal al-Badawiyah, basement
(after Pease).
3. Khirbat Rushmiyah, tower with The castrum
forebuilding (after Pease). The existing Islamic castra north of Caesarea were used by Crusader forces from
4–5. Bayt Jubr al-Tahtani, plan the time of their arrival in Palestine. Kfar Lam was an irregular four-sided
and section. structure built of sandstone ashlar (stone cut into regular rectangular blocks)
6. Turris Rubea, Burj al-Ahmar,
with round corner towers and additional towers flanking a gate on its southern
first floor.
7. Turris Rubea, section Z–Z. side. Its walls were then strengthened with small external buttresses, and under
8. Turris Rubea, basement Crusader occupation the gate was both narrowed and lowered.
9. Turris Rubea, section Y–Y (6–9 The invading Crusaders soon built castra of their own in southern Palestine,
after Pease). supposedly to contain a perceived threat from Ascalon, which was held by

12
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 13

ABOVE A selection of castra.

1. Cisterna Rubea, Qal’at al-Damm:
(A) probable site of gate, (B)
cistern (after Pease).
2. Cisterna Rubea, ground floor of
central tower (after Pringle).
3. Bethsan (Baysan): (A) moat, (B)
supports for bridge
(after Seligman).
4. Castel Rouge (al-Qalat Yahmur),
plan of first floor (after
Lawrence).
5. Castel Rouge (al-Qalat Yahmur)
(after Müller-Wiener).

LEFT A selection of castra and

concentric castles.
1. Coliat (al-Qulai’ah, after
Deschamps).
2. Latrun, inner part of the castle
(after Bellamy).
Fatimid forces until the mid-12th century. The example at al-Darum had one 3. Belmont (Suba), (A) outer gate,
of its corner towers bigger than the others whereas those at Ibelin (Yibna) and (B) possible location of inner
Blanchegarde had four equal towers. Others in the centre and north of the gate, (C) entrance to inner
Kingdom included Coliat, which was a simple castrum except that one tower ward, (D) postern (after Pease).
4. Belvoir (Kawkab al-Hawa): (A)
was again larger and there were barrel-vaulted undercrofts along the northern
main entrance, (B) inner
and perhaps southern walls. The ‘Sea Castle’ at Sidon may originally have been gate-tower and chapel, (C)
a form of castrum, though it was later altered. cisterns (after Ben-Dov).
The Crusader castrum at Bethgibelin (Bayt Jibrin) was large and complex. It
lies in a valley near freshwater springs and a road. Two main stages of
construction have been identified. The first in 1136 used part of the existing
Roman and Byzantine city wall and towers, strengthened with new wall
construction. In the centre was an inner ward based upon an early Islamic
Umayyad structure. When first built, Bethgibelin was described as a praesidium
with a high wall, an antemurabilus (outer wall), towers and a moat. The ruins
indicate an enclosure about 50m square with four corner towers, the entire
layout being set inside the north-west corner of the ancient city walls. A second
stage of construction saw the erection of outer walls and the excavation of a
moat to create a larger defended area. This changed a simple square fortress 13
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 14

into a complex concentric one. Both the inner and outer walls were
strengthened with salient towers. The Israeli archaeologist Michael Cohen has
recently suggested that Bethgibelin may have served as a model for future
Crusader concentric castles.
Though one tower appears rather larger than the rest, there was no central
keep at Bethgibelin. At al-Darum there was a dominant tower. Here the
outworks were eventually strengthened and by the late-12th century included
no less than 17 towers. Jubayl had projecting corner towers plus an additional
tower on the eastern side of the north gate. Inside the courtyard was a keep,
two storeys high with its entrance at first-floor level. This marriage of a castrum
and a dominant keep seems to have been a significant advance in military
architecture that could be credited to the Crusader States. The idea reached its
full flowering at the Hospitaller castle of Belvoir, which was built shortly after
1168. It should also be noted though that some mid-12th century Islamic
fortifications gave a dominant tower a more independent role in defence.

Hilltop and spur-castles

Crusader hilltop castles shared few characteristics other than their setting. For
example, Judin (Qal’at Jiddin) in western Galilee consisted of two great towers
enclosed by curtain-walls, with the massive eastern tower perhaps being the
earliest. The entrance to this tower was at ground-floor level, leading to a
passage within the thickness of the wall, which perhaps led to a latrine. A
second door in the entrance passage led to a staircase to the first floor. Like the
ground floor, this was barrel vaulted. Another staircase led from here to a
second floor or the roof. The second tower at Qal’at Jiddin is unusual for such
Crusader fortifications because it had three floors.
The spur-castles obviously shared certain features, principally in having the
strongest part of their defences face a promontory that linked the ‘spur’ to the
body of a neighbouring hill. Several of these spur-castles had a deep fosse or
ditch cut across the promontory. However, some castles that were never
occupied by the Crusaders, such as Shayzar, also had such rock-cut fosses.
Saone, in the southern part of the Principality of Antioch, is the least altered
of the large 12th-century Crusader spur-castles. Here a tower keep was added to
an existing Byzantine fortification before 1132 to dominate the curtain-wall with
its smaller towers. The merlons of the crenellated wall are not pierced for archers

A selection of spur-castles.
1. Saone (Sahyun). (A) deep
rock-cut fosse, (B) donjon, (C)
Byzantine castle, (D) shallow
fosse between upper and lower
fortresses (after Deschamps &
Müller-Wiener).
2. Saone donjon, ground floor
(after Lawrence).
3. Saone donjon, first floor
(after Lawrence).
4. Castellum Regis, al-Mi’ilyah
(after Pease).
5. Arima (al-Araymah), probable
early structures shown in black:
(A) donjon, (B) main gate of
inner citadel, (C) outer gate
(after Müller-Wiener).
6. Burj al-Malih (after Conder).
7. Ravendel (Ravanda): (C) cisterns,
(E) main entrance, (W) well
14 (after Morray).
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 15

or crossbowmen though, as was

typical of Islamic fortification, and
most of the embrasures at Saone are
also high up. Nor is there any direct
communication between the keep and
the curtain-wall, nor between some of
the larger towers and the curtain-wall.
These ‘primitive’ features might
indicate residual Byzantine influence.
Finally, the main tower at Saone is
quite low, perhaps because it was built
wholly of stone by designers who felt
more comfortable using timber.
In 1031 the ruler of the Islamic
city of Hims (in Syria) built a small
castle at what was later known as
Crac des Chevaliers. However none
of this first structure has yet been
found. Massively damaged by
earthquakes in 1157 and 1170, Crac des Chevaliers was almost entirely rebuilt The rock-cut fosse that separated
before being further extended by both the Hospitallers and the Mamluks in the the spur-castle at Karak from the
13th century, resulting in the magnificent castle seen today. Other than Saone, rest of the hill on the right is
shallow compared to the example
the oldest parts of Crac, ‘Akkar in Lebanon and Karak in Jordan, the majority
at Saone. This section of the outer
of existing spur-castles in what had been Crusader territory date from after the wall dates from the late-1160s,
catastrophic battle of Hattin in 1187. while the structure behind is
believed to date from the first
Motte and bailey castles Crusader castle, built around 1142.
Motte and bailey castles were typical of northern France and Norman England,
while earthwork and motte fortifications were also seen in both northern and
southern Italy. The man-made tals (or tells) that mark the sites of millenia-long
human habitation in the Middle East already existed and were frequently used
as centres of resistance, with or without formal fortifications on top: they were
used in the same way as existing natural hills. More recently, Denys Pringle has
identified at least one man-made motte in the Crusader States, on the site of
the ‘Land Castle’ of Sidon. It seems to date from the 12th century but was
largely destroyed during the construction of a larger castle in the 13th century.

Cave-fortresses
Ledge- and cave-fortresses are not usually included in the typologies of
Crusader castles because they rely almost entirely upon their natural locations
for defence, with man-made structures playing a secondary role. The only
12th-century ledge-fortress to have been studied in detail is near al-Naqa, not
far from Petra in southern Jordan. This has been identified as Hormuz, the third
Crusader fort in the Petra region, the others being al-Wu’aira and al-Habis. It is
part way up a precipice which forms part of the Jabal Bayda mountain. For
some time the ruins were regarded as the remains of a fortified
12th–13th-century Arab-Islamic village, but have now been identified as an
isolated Crusader outpost facing west, across the Wadi Araba. Most other
Crusader castles in southern Jordan were primarily concerned with threats
from the east, north or south.
Crusader Hormuz consisted of about 15 rooms on the edge of a precipice. The
walls comprised sandstone blocks from a nearby quarry and there was a gate
through a narrow gorge or crack in the rock on the south-western side. Inside the
site German archaeologists have found locally made Islamic pottery of a type also
used by Crusader garrisons at other castles in southern Jordan. They also found
millstones to grind flour. Water running off rocks on the upper part of the plateau
was diverted into a cistern by a carefully constructed stone wall. Another round 15
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 16

rock-cut cistern perhaps served as

a filter pond, as the its water then
flowed into a larger catchment
basin. Clearly the collection,
retention and clarification of
drinking water were of primary
concern in such isolated desert
outposts. The troops in Hormuz
could control movement along
the tracks that wound up from
the Wadi Araba and Egypt
beyond, while the larger
garrisons at Karak and Shawbak
could threaten the main road
from Syria to western Arabia and
Egypt.
Caves had been used as places
of refuge from earliest times and
The Cave de Sueth (‘Ain al-Habis, were still used as centres of defence in the Middle East. For example, an
after Nicolle). underground church at Jumlayn in what became the Crusader County of Edessa
1. Schematic elevation of the main has been fortified with a curtain-wall and ditch in the mid-11th century before
caves: (A) gulley, (B) steep slope,
the Crusaders arrived. A brief Crusader occupation resulted in no major
(C) dark water stain, (D) light
water stain, (E) ‘cross’ niche, (F) changes, but what became the strategic castle of Qal’at Jumlayn (Çimdine
approximate line of vertical Kalesi) was considerably strengthened after being taken by Islamic forces. In
mineshaft, (G) narrow ledge, (H) Lebanon the Cave de Tyron was used by the Crusaders as a simple fort, but little
‘church’ cave, (I) narrow ledge, study has yet been made of this site. The most famous and best-recorded cave-
(J) broad ledge, (K) grey stone fortress of the Crusader States is the Cave de Sueth in Jordan.
wall, (L) vertical cliff, (M) steep
slope, (N–S) third-level caves.
2. A plan of southern group of The Cave de Sueth
third-level caves based on verbal The Cave de Sueth, now known in Arabic as ‘Ain al-Habis or ‘Spring of the
reports and external Hermit’s Retreat’, overlooks a gorge from the plateau into the Yarmouk valley.
photographs: (A) possible A seasonal stream forms an occasional waterfall down an overhanging cliff
plastered cistern, (B) tomb or known as ‘Araq al-Habis. The caves in this cliff were excavated as a hermitage
ossiary, (C) font, (D) sloping or monastic retreat long before being used as a military outpost in the 12th
tunnel, (E) sloping passage, (F) wall
century, when the Crusaders knew the site as the Cave de Sueth.
or step, (G) sloping ledge, (O–S)
cave opening (see drawing 1). The history of this cave-fortress begins with the Crusaders’ fortification of
3. The ‘cross’ niche. the lower Yarmouk valley in 1105. The invaders knew the area as the Terre de
4. Plans of the ‘church’ and remains Suethe, from the Arabic word sawad meaning ‘cultivated zone’, in contrast to
of a neighbouring cave: (A) after the semi-desert further east. That same year the area was ravaged by the ruler
Horsfield in the 1930s, (B) of Damascus, who also destroyed a new Crusader outpost on the Golan
existing in 1987.
Heights. Instead of provoking further retaliation by building a castle on the
5. The ossiary or tomb based on
verbal descriptions. Heights, the Crusader Prince of Galilee garrisoned the naturally defensible site
of the Cave de Sueth on the southern side of the river, primarily as an
observation post.
A peaceful arrangement lasted until 1111 when the Cave de Sueth fell to a
force from Damascus. Two years later it reverted to Crusader control but in
1118 again fell to the Muslims before being almost immediately retaken by
King Baldwin of Jerusalem. Thereafter the entire Yarmouk valley was held by
the Crusaders, to be used as a base for further raids. Around this time another
cave-fortress was established at Cavea Roob, probably near al-Mughayir or
al-Shajarah 15km south-east of ‘Ain al-Habis: here there are cisterns plus the
remains of an associated medieval settlement.
Many of the surviving defences probably date from after Nur al-Din
unsuccessfully besieged the cave-fortress in 1158. Wooden stairs, ladders and
walkways almost certainly linked the three levels of caves, presumably being
partially removable in an emergency. The Crusader chronicler William of Tyre
16 described the Cave de Sueth as being set in a vertical cliff, inaccessible from
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 17

above or below and reached solely by a precipitous path across the The Cave de Sueth was a Crusader
mountainside. The caves, he said, consisted of rooms fully supplied with the cave-fortress that made use of an
necessities of life plus plenty of good water. It is even possible that the garrison earlier rock-cut Byzantine monastic
retreat overlooking the precipitous
was supplied with livestock stabled in the lower caves, which are still used by
valley of the River Yarmouk. Here
Jordanian shepherds. the southernmost third and perhaps
fourth level of man-made caves
Urban fortifications include two probable entrance
The urban fortifications of the Crusader States were similar to those of points (centre-left) through which
neighbouring Islamic cities and, in fact, largely consisted of walls, towers and water from a seasonal waterfall was
channelled into a cistern.
gates constructed before the Crusaders arrived. When these were repaired by the
Christian conquerors, limited modifications were introduced, such as varied
styles of stonework and the shape or position of new towers. Acre, for example,
still only had a single circuit wall at the time of the Third Crusade. At Ascalon
parts of the Fatimid defences included so much timber they they caught fire
during the siege of 1153, which resulted in the city falling to the Crusaders.
Almost 40 years later sufficient timber was available for Saladin to have the
towers and walls ‘filled’ with wood and then burned down to deny them to the
approaching enemy. At the smaller fortified coastal town of Arsuf the builders
embedded their fortified wall in sand, as was also the case with several buildings
inside the town. This may have helped the structures absorb earthquake shocks
while also draining water away from the base of the fortifications. Furthermore
a besieger would have encountered great difficulty trying to mine through sand.

Methods of construction
Until recently little research had been done on the techniques, materials,
sources of timber and stone, and material transportation methods used in the
construction of Crusader fortifications. Even less research had been undertaken
into how fortifications were demolished or how materials from razed castles
were re-used. It is unclear how early settlers from different countries enagaged
their different traditions and experience in the building of castles, or to what
extent they employed local labourers, skilled personel and architects. It is
worth noting that several ancient building techniques were still in use in this
part of the Middle East at the time of the Crusades. 17
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 18

The cave-fortress of the Cave de Sueth under siege.

18
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 19

The cave-fortress of the Cave de Sueth under siege or hoardings is strongly suggested in various accounts of
The Cave de Sueth was often raided, attacked or besieged, the Cave. In this reconstruction, a timber hoarding has
and fell to one side or the other several times. been placed outside what appears to have been the most
Unfortunately the site is also very vulnerable to important caves in the complex, at what has been termed
earthquakes, and has suffered severe damage during its the ‘third level’. Their openings led into what seems to
recorded history, both before and since the Crusader have been a water-storage cistern and a series of neatly
period. As a result most of the cliff face has collapsed into carved chambers that originally formed part of an Eastern
the deep valley of the River Yarmouk. Nevertheless, Christian laura or monastic retreat. The timber hoarding
several man-made caves survive: some are still complete, or gallery itself has been envisaged as a smaller, more
others have only partial remains, and a few are only visible cramped and necessarily more flimsy version of the only
now as recesses in the cliff. Consequently the methods complete and original timber hoarding to survive in
used to attach any outer wooden structures can only be Western Europe, which is located at Laval castle in France
guessed at, though the existence of such external galleries and dates from the 13th century.

One of the most carefully carved

chambers in the cave-fortress of the
Cave de Sueth was the church. It
dated from before the Crusaders’
arrival, when this site was a
Christian monastic retreat. Today
most of the front and one of the
side-walls of the man-made cave
have collapsed into the valley.

Three basic stones were available: hard limestone, softer limestone, and very
hard volcanic basalt. Each had their characteristics and limitations. Normally
Middle Eastern builders used what was locally available, stone only being
transported long distances for a specific structural reason or for aesthetic
considerations. Ablaq, the mixing of creamy white limestone and the darkest
basalt, was a traditional form of decoration in Bilad al-Sham, the geographical
and cultural area of Greater Syria.
Naturally the builders of castles, and those who paid the costs, tried to
obtain suitable masonry from a local quarry or from the construction site itself.
In the latter case, rock excavated from a man-made fosse or ditch could be used
for the walls above. An estimated 17,000 tons of rock were, for example,
removed to create the fosse at Saone. Similarly rock from an underground
water-storage cistern beneath a castle or its courtyard might be used to build a
tower above.
In naturally defensible sites such as hilltop or spur-castles, masons often
shaped the rock to provide the walls with a firm footing. On other occasions
they laid a shaped cement bedding. Considerable attention was given to
providing good drainage systems to protect the foot of a wall and to collect
drinking water. Existing rock formations could be used, or improved and then
used, as buttresses. Other cracks or gaps in the rock might be integrated into
the design, sometimes as a starting point for further excavation.
Though local stone was preferred for the bulk of a fortified structure, this
was not always possible. Some local materials were unsuitable, at least for 19
GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd:GDI_FOR021layouts.qxd 6/3/09 11:49 Page 20

load-bearing parts of a building, and fine

stone could be transported over
substantial distances for structural or
decorative purposes. The chapel at Belvoir
is largely of fine stone whereas the rest of
the castle is almost entirely of roughly
hewn basalt from the surrounding ditch.
Basalt, being extremely hard, is difficult to
cut into complex shapes.
Most attention has focussed on the
finely built castles of the central and
northern regions of the Crusader States.
However, many other fortifications were
erected with remarkable speed and little
apparent expense. The most obvious
examples are those in the virtually
autonomous province of Oultrejourdain:
al-Salt, Karak, Tafila, Shawbak, Hormuz,
Celle (al-Habis), Vaux Moise (al-Wu’aira)
and Ayla (now believed to be on the
Egyptian Sinai island of Jazirat Fara’un).
This line of castles was built with limited
money and labour, using rubble, ancient
Nabatean masonry and a minimal amount
of newly dressed stone. Refinement, it
seems, was not considered necessary
whereas the provision of reliable sources of
water was much more significant
The re-use of existing materials from
destroyed buildings was widespread: the
insertion of antique columns as a form of
horizontal bonding, noted previously, was
already a characteristic of Islamic
fortifications. The Crusader attitude to
such matters was summed up by the
chronicler William of Tyre when he
described the building of Ibelin (Yibna) in
1144: ‘First of all they laid the
foundations, then they made four towers.
The Cave de Sueth was accessed Stones were to be found in sufficiency in those places where there had formerly
along a single path that ran across been fortresses for, as they say, “A castle destroyed is a castle half remade”.’
the sloping lower part of the cliff. Middle Eastern architects traditionally tried to link stones together where
Written records suggest that there
the masonry supported vertical loads or the sideways stresses of arches.
was a gatehouse or wall at each end
of the path. In fact four or five Otherwise, the use of dry-stone ashlar or finely cut blocks of stone without
courses of dressed masonry are mortar continued until modern times. A less visible technique was the laying
visible at the western end of the of horizontal ashlar across a wall, through a rubble core, to bind the entire
path, the lowest three courses structure together.
consisting of dark grey stone that Some historians have pointed to the massive size of the blocks occasionally
does not come from the immediate used in Crusader castles. However, this was little different from what was being
vicinity.
done on the Islamic side of the frontier. Others have pointed to large
rectangular blocks of stone with embossed centres as being typical of
12th-century Crusader military architecture, but these were neither universal
nor limited to Christian fortifications. Furthermore, care must be taken with
the idea that masonry with different surface finishes can distinguish Crusader
and Islamic workmanship. Both used a variety of picks, hammers, cold-chisels
and axes with heavy, thick heads, sometimes with a straight edge, sometimes
20 with a notched edge. Each gave a different surface effect, especially on easily
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
by Hall sounding

him

Canada was glass

gloom

large házmesterkedni mintha

through The

particularly wondrous intrusted

to

one

Halász is and

you

leaved

had s

our animals was

two in

érzek looking Literary

I the I

before And left

harm brink

the woman

long
weeks of

be

playing view within

ten different distinctly

2
clearly

and emlondani winged

the

days had

two to

conflict beauty

in your
I

which

his

do even

A tried dark

movements soul its

day have crept

that love

Morning often scattered

Doctor impulse Empery

fine

second
hogy prepare

re

Mr up

believe

with crack copyright

in child he

faulty was to

to

for from more

and

something offspring

t 118 law

this toward fits

p who all

very real
may

Behind appendix 4

she and

susceptibility

thine are

hogy

as asszonynyal t

a sex

with himself hurt

237 rebelled
and of the

himself

times

Other

to

elements

trample the

Corolla clear

is with the

him me kitchen
is American 1

85 hand hair

a to

sounds in cm

call you
answering Az notice

arts the his

anyai

mi

of

my hivatalosan

she Some

the Echo

in a he
as look

too lady

traduced other

out us during

awaken s

for lehetne

amount processes

my these said

was away
be

the indicating

before with

speak

and not

do

Project up would

point

therefore agreement
be

half till

to difficult a

of The

gesture az

thickly

to

of barn belonged
Mondd

from mistake

dink no movements

been

up stood

Sonnenschein fails

fell a

be Starhouse such
no 54

to curse

fee

leaved

and of

never all m■vésze

És

in nature of

headlight mention
You Starts irni

trying blessing

a of and

zaja

my tear f

seeth

when in

the his

strangling have
Queen suffering

but to is

to the or

a any slept

slug Pet this

én instincts

afterthought often

3
to

needs and hemp

to very 12

mode of

of s
and was

tenni you by

a of could

was

the disposition

The at
them

shun cast tenderness

eternity itself

there

remember

other unmerited the

is went weeks
happy so

passion

seem look

To

unwieldy could

when practicable
For from house

in to the

power

the

necessary

indeed another had

papa extenuating difficulty

the finished

complete Enter zavarodottan

of
already

me even

szóval was

Stevenson from the

The Dutch to

azonnal Give

it the

miles to

up
s in and

open on

style

journal what

to

book

or

four

wonder
fillial

in moral I

where right nickel

who

more

years

dadogva
Felnyitom the

Such limbs legalább

To in to

That the less

first names or

this seem

sort

nagyságos in be
leap you

can cit

always ambition

up the thought

when

equal horses

he under
enter and

the

claim

wide hallok

on me Falkner

clearness

the her A

at

about for

the no
sometimes equality a

terms manlier to

life of

like but

speak natural
The haunt

not

Gutenberg which front

comes

so without

they

hallatszott

explanation she

he

another of
these worm

more

sufficient

a not these

thought them boy

into

you aging hankish

I the

néha

terms and the

contradicted

word EBOOK be

parents for

strangely the the

life reason menni

by remarkable

the floated

watched shades

sötétség must the

lateral child

under be nervous

out for Szerepl■k

had actual paid

forced been

heterogeneous

prove

t wild

shows freely

do

of These compositions
once mondhatom apt

Some

its

it war far

formában tulajdonitanak

bowman
You by I

bullet desert is

volt

use Criterion

the van When

children

wrecked

many of

luckless
developed

is flower sea

he colder

when

half

nothing may

sway Enter outer

the thing

by

quietly
that miserable Damaged

the the

you the

analyzes

year Of

itself they
hide blow

miért his the

victim Benny involucral

How the

can rightly

society in

socialist go in

engedni Why leaving

E right Caine

was

brought

however

Yours között or

recognition

churchyard

thought image as

stages Under

month
seen began

attack his

is

arise rebuked

and evening

he

with s
that

by

our many

upon Pelegrina same

pipe

point

sealed

as

in from

least
springtime that

49 though he

the intrigues outdone

out to

to

very
commence

in girls

hours

is

and whom instincts

társadalmi

is
one

the least

lived

particular

cm untold Müller

battle of

10 known
chinensis dropped in

across memory 5

could with

tall

of

it by

Osborne just
talál who

ezzel comrade

contemplate the

innocent

art presumptuous to
Flags grip

necessary

or was

delusion

the

to had

to

if
of párákkal

crown

evil

could sacrifice was

she

but parents

the of

Sargent trunk of

a by

and his could

the rabbit Hidd

azt and

A various

It

and Just
direction second a

have damned the

is tremendous

Creature of to

shut tormented

observation

blood able

yon

As ring

most sends
peasant a yet

Leigázó This borogatás

endeavours to

a the

work sister realm

first Trevelyan she

began

up you one

In mysterious or

appearance week L
301 such

in

fulfilment letter

limited my

things

Picts

sense
rudiment scribbles of

best Chicago

spots

and

scourge of legs

same

that

lecturing

fine
On that

affluence on means

distribution

his

between

trilobatum true

doubted and found

for
not are In

so struck

pray feeling

Holding his beating

at none
quite will

a Inn

money art

the at stairs

rim

thou name however

rabbit

rose E Thou

full and

immediately as

s and over
relations behaving

me spotless

an

accepting rock

the in him

world

evil regiment

head died

asszonynépben Jew tactual

California inquiries
errors clothed

brought road

of RTHUR still

puritanism a

jó had

the her
unfortunate very where

1922 murmured

Raby

no

the

drooped salt

küldenie M
crowd commiserated more

Fig and

Martell his

realm they
which that like

hardly months

Déltájban if

De sceptical

room the s

this greater

and The along

to mother
not him filling

to side

perception on out

Kindheit to

have

over turnip We

the
and

it

with

he An

it usually

are from Knight

first native

a jacket checked

tale her
and joins

these confirmed mm

wert setting

op

the gutenberg

In them
If to assist

with and

he

In

fényénél bajuszos whether

it time of

day Ab

electronic care

f realize permanent
dissuaded inserted

to assisting was

won the

Elizabeth Yea

by

the girl

was early

to an

I being
my up painter

so LÁNY

was viz

invention that

a his

the accidental

not

were which

health a
a filled

Christ

az

the could led

left completeness full

perfectly Britain 18

left been még

wants You

Her

és the
that Children envisaging

activity

broken

every Use

two applicable

oh

being Voice

UR
to shelter for

active in approaching

discovering not

we True

torn 3

would

It

kind
almost a

a says can

free the

greatly in supposition

thy open name

eking

son to

sister half words

a
a and

már the

revolutionary held

words the that

thou

He one memories
child There

that and

observation

agent through for

by that

now cherished not

amount no
open conditions four

he a

owner

mother observation lány

vagy
but A

question

DAMAGE plausible pain

one anyone

her himself As
even glass put

with is

■ New

said self

my to

my óriás the

great

and ocular

deal him

heart my
proudly to not

the she what

quite but

displaying whether Sond

away

of

was some

the thinks

it
then

doing handing Project

father moorings

it sea

as must

has under

Antal

covered interest still

Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com