house of 'Aly es-Sughîr. They boast of high antiquity; and are exclusive in their marriages, like the Sheikhs of the Druzes. These two great fortresses of Tibnîn and esh-Shukîf figure not unfrequently in the history of the crusades; but lying in the mountains at a distance from the common routes, they have subsequently escaped the observation of almost all travellers. A few further notices of them, may therefore be here not out of place. The fortress of Tibnîn, as we are informed by William of Tyre, was erected in A. D. 1107 by Hugh of St. Omer, then lord of Tiberias. This chieftain was in the habit of making incursions upon the city and territory of Tyre, which had not yet been subdued by the Franks; and built this castle as a strong-hold, in furtherance of his plans, on the way between the two cities; selecting for its site a precipitous height, in the midst of a rich and cultivated tract upon the mountains, abounding in vineyards, fruits, and forests. To this new fortress, the founder gave the name of Toron, by which it is usually mentioned among the Franks; Arabian writers know it only as Tibnîn.' It became an important fortress, and gave name to the family of its possessors. In A. D. 1551, Honfroy of Toron was appointed as the Constable of king Baldwin III; he is described as having large possessions in Phenicia, and in the mountains around Tyre; and after having acted a conspicuous part in the transactions of the succeeding years, was at last mortally wounded in the battle 1) Will Tyr. XI. 5, "In montibus-ab eadem urbe Tyrensi quasi per decem distantibus miliaria, in locum cui nomen priscum Tibenin, castrum aedificare, cui... nomen indidit Toronum." Jacob de Vitry copies the language of William of Tyre, omitting the VOL. III. 48 date; near Bâniâs in A. D. 1179.' His grandson of the same name, married the younger sister of Baldwin IV; and was afterwards offered the crown of Jerusalem, by the barons assembled at Nabulus, in opposition to Guy of Lusignan. This he was wise enough to decline; and having joined the banner of Guy, was taken prisoner at the battle of Hattîn.2 Immediately after this battle, in the same year, A. D. 1187, the fortress was invested by Saladin himself, and captured after an assault of six days.3 The original relations of Tibnîn and Tyre were now reyersed; and the Saracens in possession of the former, henceforth harassed from it the Christians as masters of the latter. To do away this evil, the new host of pilgrims and crusaders, chiefly from Germany, which arrived in the Holy Land in A. D. 1197, undertook among other enterprises the reduction of the castle of Tibnîn. The Christian host sat down before the fortress on the 11th of December, under the command of the Duke of Brabant; not indeed with unanimity and confidence; for distrust already existed between the Syrian Franks and the new comers, who longed to press forward against Jerusalem. Yet the siege was urged with vigour; and as the steepness of the hill on which the castle stood, prevented the approach of the usual machines, mines were driven under the hill beneath the walls. In this labour, the many pilgrims from Goslar in Germany, who were practically acquainted with mining for metals, rendered great service. At length after four weeks the mines were sprung, and breaches formed in the walls in many places. 1) Will. Tyr. XVII. 14. XXI. 27. Wilken 1. c. III. ii. pp. 13, 191. See above, p. 363. 2) Will Tyr. XXII. 5. Jac. de Vitr. c. 93. p. 1117. Wilken 1. c. pp. 201, 255, 287. Comp. above, p. 247. 3) Bohaed. Vit. Salad. pp. 71, 72. Reinaud Extr. p. 202. Wilken 1. c. III. ii. p. 295. The Muslim garrison now desired to capitulate, and sent seven of their leaders to the Christian camp to propose terms. Their proposals were favourably received by the princes; but the voice of discontent broke out in the host, and especially among the Syrian Franks, that the now defenceless fortress should not be carried by storm, and an example be made which should strike terror into the hearts of their enemies. Yet after long wavering, the terms proposed were accepted; and a portion of the delegates remained as hostages in the camp, while the rest returned to the fortress. But such was their report of the disunion prevailing among the Christian warriors, that the garrison resolved to maintain their post; and continued the defence with obstinacy, leaving the hostages to their fate. The besiegers now renewed their assaults; with the more energy perhaps, because they had reason to dread the approach of Melek el-Âdil with a Saracen army. On the last day of January a council of war was held, and a general storm of the fortress determined upon for the next day. The announcement of this measure was received with joy; and all parties united in mutual resolves and exhortations, either to conquer or die. Meantime it was reported through the host, that the servants of the princes, with their baggage, had left the camp on their way to Tyre. The pilgrims instantly followed the example; loaded up their baggage, and hurried off in the same direction, on horseback and on foot; abandoning the camp in such haste and confusion, that many lost all their ef fects, and the sick and wounded were left behind. To heighten the confusion and dismay, a violent storm of rain and hail burst upon the heads of the Christians during their disgraceful flight. Thus shamefully ended this memorable siege; after having twice been on the point of being brought to a successful conclusion.1 We hear little more of Tibnîn. In A. D. 1219 it was dismantled, like other fortresses, by the Sultan Mu'adh-dhem, in order that it might not again become a strong-hold of the Christians.2 Yet it appears once more to have come into their hands; for in A. D. 1266 we find Sultan Bibars taking possession of it, after the siege and capture of Safed. The place is spoken of by Benjamin of Tudela, and also by Brocardus; but appears ever since to have remained unvisited and unknown, except the slight mention of the name by Nau, who passed here in A. D. 1674.1 The castle esh-Shukîf bears among the Frank historians of the crusades the name of Belfort or Beaufort. The date of its erection is not given, nor are we informed whether it was built by Christians or Saracens; though not improbably it was of Christian origin, like the neighbouring fortresses of Tibnîn, Safed, Kaukab or Belvoir, and others. It is first mentioned by William of Tyre, in A. D. 1179, as a castle of the Franks; he relates that after the partial defeat of the Christians in that year by Saladin near Bâniâs, many of the knights and troops took refuge in the neighbouring fortress of Belfort. In A. D. 1189, nearly two 1) The particulars of this siege are given by Arnold of Lubeck lib. V. c. 4, seq. in Leibnitz Scriptor. Rerum Brunsvic. Tom. II. p. 706, seq. Oliver. Scholast. in Eccardi Corp. Hist. Med. Aevi, Tom. II. p. 1391, seq. Comp. İbn elAthir in Reinaud Extr. pp. 380, 381. See Wilken Gesch. der Kr. V. p. 42-53. 2) Wilken ib. VI. p. 236, and Abu Shâmeh as there cited. 3) Reinaud 1. c. p. 498. ken ib. VII. p. 493. Wil 4) Benj. de Tud. par Barat. p. 108; comp. Hottinger Cippi Hebr. Ed. 2. p. 66.-Brocardus c. III. p. 172. Nau Voyage etc. p. 552. 5) See the third following note. Among Arabian writers its common appellation is Shukif Arnûn, to distinguish it from several other fortresses of less note also called esh-Shukif. Abulf. Tab. Syr. p. 98. Schultens Index in Vita Salad. art. Sjaky fum. 6) Will. Tyr. XXI. 29. Wilken ib. III. ii. P. 193. years after the battle of Hattîn, Saladin with his army sat down on the last day of April before esh-Shŭkîf. The siege was prolonged by the artifices of Raynald of Sidon, the commander of the castle; who came into Saladin's camp and offered to deliver up the fortress, provided the Sultan would grant him three months' time, in order to remove his family and effects from Tyre to a place of security. The conditions were accepted; but when the time expired, Raynald still sought by various pretexts to obtain further delay. Meantime the investment of 'Akka by a new host of crusaders, called off the attention of Saladin; and tired of the subterfuges of Raynald, he sent him in chains to Damascus, and broke off for a time the siege of esh-Shukîf, in order to watch the army of the Franks. Yet the fortress was again invested, and was surrendered to him in April of the next year; on condition of the liberation of Raynald, and the unmolested retirement of the garrison.' The castle esh-Shukîf was restored to the Franks in A. D. 1240, along with Safed, in consequence of a treaty with Isma'îl, Sultan of Damascus.2 The garrison, however, refused to deliver it up to the Christians, and surrendered it at last only to Isma'îl himself, leaving him to do with it what he pleased. Twenty years later, in A. D. 1260, the Templars acquired Sidon and the fortress of Belfort by purchase; and they still held possession of it, when Bibars, in April A. D. 1268, suddenly appeared before it, and began a 1) Bohaeddin Vit. Salad. p. 89, seq. 95, seq. 113. Reinaud Extr. pp. 237, 239, 240. Wilken ib. IV. pp. 247, 255, 259, 274. 2) See above, p. 328. In recording this transaction, the Arabian historians speak of esh Shukif and Safed, while the Christian writers have Belfort and Safed. Reinaud p. 440. Abulf. Annal. A. H. 638. Tom. IV. p. 482. Hugo Plagon p. 723. Marin. Sanut. p. 215. Comp. Wilken ib. VI. p. 600. -Marin. Sanutus further describes the river el-Kâsimîyeh (Lîtâny) as flowing close under Belfort; p. 245. 3) Reinaud p. 441. Wilken 1. c. p. 603. 4) Hugo Plagon p. 736. Marin. Sanut. p. 221. Wilken ib. VII. p. 400. |