Delving into Medieval warfare: Studying military rules of sieges during 12th century Crusades

AMMAN — In mediaeval warfare, sieges of fortified cities were conducted in accordance with rules taken from five verses in the book of Deuteronomy, according to Thomas Brosset from Lancaster University, specifying that when a fortress was stormed, some tacit norms of war conduct existed.

Violence towards the inhabitants was allowed if the city’s population continued to resist, explained Brosset, who specialised in Crusades and Levantine castles.

“During the 12th century, it took a very specific form that was rarely broken. Men of fighting age could be slaughtered, while women and children were either made prisoners or enslaved,” explained Brosset, adding that the fate of elders is more problematic to understand. 

Also, potential scenarios during the siege would be a negotiated agreement, storm or unconditional surrender. 

Elders were likely spared and kept free, though it is very uncertain whether a norm existed or not for elders.

“Both sieges between Muslim coreligionists and between Franks and Muslims followed these norms,” he said, talking about military rules in the mediaeval Levant that included modern-day Jordan.

These norms were partly challenged during the establishment of the Crusaders in the Levant from 1097 until the 1110s.

“Otherwise, they were respected, as there are similar practices in the region since ancient Greece,” Brosset explained.

Turning back to the 12th century, most inhabitants likely knew they faced death or enslavement during an assault as they acted in that regard to try to ensure their survival, the historian continued, adding that it also meant potentially losing their kin, their home, and their belongings.

“Consequently, once the walls or gates of a city were taken, occupants of besieged sites mainly fled towards three specific locations. In addition, some tried to leave the town, but it seems to have been rare with little success for those attempting it. In most assaults, inhabitants fled towards the citadel, religious buildings, and houses,” noted Brosset.

 The main areas of the massacre were streets and squares, as these were transitional areas towards the inhabitant’s destination, Brosset underlined, adding that the citadel was the only location that provided clear and consistent chances of survival throughout the 12th century. 

“It was rare that the citadel would fall at the same time as the rest of the settlement. The occupants were generally able to negotiate a separate surrender or to resist until a relief army arrived. However, the citadel had limited capacity and not everyone could reach it before it was blockaded by the besiegers,” Brosset said, noting that religious buildings were probably considered safe by inhabitants. 

Surprisingly, each time these buildings are mentioned during an assault, it is to show that a massacre occurred, he underlined.

However, all those events happened between Frankish and Muslim besiegers, like in the case of the siege of Karak in 1188 or also the Shobak Castle in 1189, he elaborated.

“It is uncertain how to analyse the few existing episodes. On one hand, the handful of cases could indicate that the religious sites were respected, in other assaults where religious sites are not mentioned. Though, it could also mean it was evident for mediaeval authors that those sites were generally not respected but mentioned in a few symbolic events, like the siege of Jerusalem in 1099,” Brosset underscored.

Finally, houses were regularly mentioned but offered little protection for their occupants. It is difficult to say whether homes were a destination, or a step to reunite with the family before moving towards religious buildings or citadels.

“I do not think a single pattern exists, but that both scenarios existed depending on individual choices,” Brosset underscored.