A Skeletal History of Byzantine Fortification a. W. Lawrence

8/10/2019 A Skeletal History of Byzantine Fortification a. W. Lawrence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-skeletal-history-of-byzantine-fortification-a-w-lawrence 1/72

A Skeletal History of Byzantine Fortification

Author(s): A. W. LawrenceSource: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 78 (1983), pp. 171-227Published by: British School at Athens

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30102803 .

Accessed: 23/01/2014 12:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual of

the British School at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30102803?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/30102803?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa



A SKELETAL

HISTORY

OF BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

(PLATES 8-21)

T

HISseriesof

analytical

descriptions

was

written

in

the

hope

it

might

reveal

both how

defensive

principles changed

and to what

extent

tradition

prevailed,

all

through

the

Byzantine

centuries.

Ideally

the

investigation

should

have been

restricted

to

fortifications of which the exact or

approximate

date was known from

literature

or

by

inscription,

but their

number is far too

small to be

genuinely

representative

even of

major

works,

which

alone tended to be so

recorded.

I

have therefore

included,

in

addition,

fortifications that

I

thought

were built

in

response

to

specific

historical circumstances

and

could

thereby

be dated within the

limits of

roughly

one

generation. Obviously such ascriptionsare bound to be more or less questionable, but I have

assessed

their

plausibility

also on

stylistic

considerations; however,

no

monument

has been

included

solely

on

grounds

of

style.

Since

this

is no

balanced

account of

Byzantine

military

architecture but

a

necessary

preliminary,

the

space

allotted

to

the individual

buildings

bears little

relation to

their

merits,

or

rather to

my

knowledge

thereof.

I

write

briefly

of remains

already satisfactorily

published,

but otherwise at whatever

length

may

be

requisite

to the

argument, particularly

about ruins

I

have

myself

examined.

In the course

of

many years

I

saw and

made notes

on

Byzantine

fortifications

(some

repeatedly)

in

eight

countries,

beginning

as

long ago

as

1950

with

the aid

of a

Leverhulme

Fellowship.

The infirmities of

age

have

unfortunately

prevented

recent

checking

on the

spot.

CONTENTS

I.

Heritage

from the undivided

Roman

Empire

of

late third and fourth centuries

2.

Transition to the fifth

century:

Corycus

and

Sparta

3.

Constantinople

and

regional capitals,

412-c. 450

4.

Towns with massive

proteichisma,

mid

or late

fifth

century

5.

The

reign

of

Anastasius

I,

491-518

6. The

reign ofJustinian, 527-565

7.

Truncation of the

Empire,

late sixth

and

early

seventh

centuries

8. Small-scale works

against

the

Arabs,

mid

seventh-early eighth

centuries

9.

Ancyra/Ankara,

seventh-ninth

centuries

10.

Additions at

Constantinople prior

to c.

850

I1.

Early

and mid tenth

century:

Attaleia, Samothrace,

Philippi,

Kyrenia

12.

Qal'at Sim'an,

979,

and

smaller beacon-forts

13.

End

of the tenth

century:

Paicuiul

ui

Soare,

Sahyun,

Ohrid,

Didyma

14.

End of the eleventh

century:

Zvecan

and

St. Hilarion

15.

Mid and

late twelfth

century:

Constantinople, Pergamon,

Miletus

16.

The successor

states,

1204-c. 1250

17.

Last datable

works,

1261-1453

Appendix: Some featuresin vaguely dated monuments

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions







172

A. W. LAWRENCE

I.

HERITAGE FROM

THE

UNDIVIDED

ROMAN EMPIRE

OF

LATE THIRD

AND

FOURTH

CENTURIES

The various

types

of

Byzantine

fortifications

all

began

by

following precedents

set when

inability

to hold

the

frontiers had let

similar

dangers

prevail

within

the Roman

Empire.

The

first barbarian invasions, during the third quarter of the third century, evoked Aurelian's wall

of Rome and

a

proliferation

of

efficient,

though

less

imposing,

walls around towns

in

western

Europe,

but

generally

poor

and often small defences

in

provinces

that afterwards became

heartlands of the Eastern

Empire.

The town wall of

Nicaea/IznikI

is indeed

the

only

dated

one

that

can rank with

many

in

France

and

Spain,

and the

fact that it

was built for

an

Emperor

(Claudius

Gothicus

in

268/9)

probably

accounts

for

its

superiority

to

other

works

which

may

have

depended

on local resources of

money

and skill.

It

stood,

with occasional

minor

repairs,

for

nearly

a

thousand

years

before the

Lascarids chose Nicaea for

their

capital

and built an

outer

wall. The

curtains,

none

of which was less

than

3-6o

m

thick,

had

previously

been about

9

m

high;

externally they

were

interrupted

at

intervals

of

6o-7o

m

by

semicircular,

half-oval,

or

apsidal

towers

(scarcely distinguishable

at a

glance)

that

projected

to

roughly

the

same distance

as

their

maximum

width,

8-9

m,

and

had

originally

been little taller

than

the

curtains.

A

pair

of such towers

flanked each of the

main

gateways,

which

actually

were

ornamental

entrances of Roman

construction but

altered to receive

a

portcullis.

We

may

assume that

portable

catapults

were

expected

to be massed

on towers

along

any

threatened

sector of

the

5

km

perimeter.

Throughout

the

wall,

both the stone

facing

and the

core

of

cemented

pebbles

were

completely

intersected

by

several

levelling-bands

composed

of

four

brick

courses,

resulting

in

practically

the same effect

as the bands of

five

courses

used

at

Constantinople

more

than

I50

years

later.

In

contrast

to this

imperial enterprise

at

Nicaea,

a

reconstruction

of the Hellenistic

wall

across the

Miletus

isthmus2

made

it defensible with manual

weapons.

The

zigzag planning

had been accentuated by a tower projecting forward from the apex of every pair of curtains,

but these alone were

rebuilt;

the

ruined towers were

totally

demolished.

In

Greece the

destructive

Herulian

raid

of

267 gave

rise

to

extremely

diverse

precautions

against

a

recurrence.

Athens

naturally

fared

best.

A

massive new

wall,3

consisting

of reused

material and

incorporating

fragmentary

old

buildings,

enclosed

an area

of uneven

ground extending

far

northward

from the

acropolis

by

means

of curtains

of varied

length

and

rectangular

towers

at

irregular

intervals,

but not

all was

contemporaneous,

and most has been demolished

for

the

sake

of

revealing

classical remains.

At

Sparta

too

the town

had shrunk.

A

less

formidable,

though quite respectable,

wall

(FIG.

I)4

was

built

enclosing

a

stoa

on the southern

slope

of

the

acropolis,

with

a

pair

of small

square

towers

flanking

a

gateway,

and others

like them

amid the

straight

curtains;

pieces

of column-shaft

were

laid

horizontally

for

bonding-perhaps

the earliest instance of an afterwards common

practice.

Presumably

the Herulians also sacked

Aegina,

where

an

extensive

town

wall5

consists

of reused

material;

it seems to

have been

almost

devoid

of

flanking,

the one

salient

preserved

being

only

2'4

m

wide and

projecting

little

over

Unless the

length

of a source needs

to

be

specified,

I

cite

only

the first of

its

relevant

pages.

In

addition

to

editorially

authorized

abbreviations,

the title

stated in

n.

27

is shortened

in

subsequent

notes to

'Landmauer',

nd 'Courtauld'

refers

to

my

own

negatives,

now the

property

of

the Courtauld

Institute

of London

University;

they

include all the

photographs

illustrated

except

that

of

Pergamon,

for

which

I thank

the

donor.

I also thank

the owners of

copyrights

for

permission

to

reproduce figures.

1

W.

Karnapp

and A.

M.

Schneider,

Die Stadtmaueron

znik

(1938).

2

Milet

ii

3:

A.

von

Gerkan,

Die

Stadtmauern

(I935)

pl.

14.

3

Thompson, JRS 49

(1959)

6I

fig.

I;

Frantz,

Hesperia

8

(1979)

202

fig.

3.

The wall

used to be called Valerian's

because

of a

misleading

statement

by

Zosimus;

most has now been

demolished.

4

Traquair,

BSA

12

(1905-6) 417

pl.

viii.

5

Alt.

Agina

i

2:

W.

W.

Wurster,

Die

spdtromische

kropo-

lismauer

(1975) 9 Beilage

1-2

pls.

1-2.








A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION

173

RO

0.,

OLIV

OLIVE

TREES

74.4

a

T7

-1

ml

N

qP

-In

7 5 ' e ,

r~cc,

4.-I

-1g

%

.

, ,

.

.. .

100 .

. . .

SCALEor

METRES

114000

FIG.

1.

Sparta.

Plan of defences

(BSA)

a metre.

At

Olympia part

of the

sanctuary

was

converted

into a fort6 of

trapezium shape,

with the

temple

of Zeus

transformed to

a

strong

point

on one

corner,

and the back of the

south

stoa

forming

the

other end of the

enclosure;

there were three

rectangular

towers.

It has

been demolished to rescue the ancient material of which it consisted.

After the almost total excavation

of

a

very

elaborate town

wall

in

north-east

Bulgaria,

T. Ivanov's

fully

illustrated

monograph,

Abritus

i

(1980),

described

it

exhaustively

and dated

it

to the end of the third

century

or

beginning

of the fourth

by

comparing

plans

of

fortifications

all over

Europe

and

some

in

other

continents;

an

English summary

is

appended

to

his

Bulgarian

text,

and the list of

captions

is translated on

p.

248.

The whole enceinte of Abritus

is

extremely

6

ADelt

16

(I960)

Chron.

129 plan

3

pl. o105a;

eue

deutsche

usgrabungen

1959)

276.








174

A.

W.

LAWRENCE

diversified

(plan

on

his

p.

30), though

its basic scheme

could

have been

treated as a

pattern

for

exact

repetition

of

features. The curtains

range

in

length

from

19

to

45-6o

m.

They

carried

a

walk about

io

m

above

ground,

entered

from both sides of the

towers,

which were

of three

storeys

connected

internally

by

wooden

stairs;

the

height

probably

amounted to

15

or

16 m

up to the merlons, above which rose tiled roofs on wooden structures (restorations on pp.

227-9).

The

towers were

individually

designed

but

basically

of

three

types: apsidal,

rectangular

(oblong

or

square),

and,

if

placed

at

a

corner,

fan-shaped.

There

were

four

main

entrances;

three of

them

opened

between

towers,

while

the

fourth stands within a shallow

rebate,

made

for

the

purpose;

all are alike

in

containing

two

gateways,

4I15-4-50

m

wide,

the outer

grooved

for

a

portcullis,

the inner

with

fittings

for

a

two-leaved

gate.

The existence

of

at least

nine

posterns

has been

verified;

some

led

through

curtains,

others from towers.

The castrum

t

Luxor,7

containing

dedications

of the

year

300

to

Diocletian

and his

colleagues,

had a disused Pharaonic

temple

for its

centre,

behind

a

new

wall

from which

apsidal

towers

projected

singly

if

at

regular

intervals but

paired

to flank

gateways;

there was

a

larger square

tower

on the one

remaining

corner.

A

door

in

the

flank of each

tower

opened

to

the

surrounding

ditch;

in

every

other

respect

the

design

conforms with

precedents

known at forts near frontiers

or

in

unruly country,

although

this

legionary

castrum

was

unlikely

to be

attacked,

being

presumably

the

quarters

for

the

garrison

of

Upper

Egypt.

Differentiation of corner

towers

by

size,

and

usually by

shape

also,

had

long

been

customary

in

forts; however,

not all the

shapes

found

in

Europe

were

used

by

the

less

venturesome

military

engineers

in

Asia or

Africa.8

Of

the

many

forts

built

under

Diocletian,

some

on the

fringes

of

the

Syrian

and

African

deserts

must

have been

familiar to

the

Byzantine

army

down

to

the

Arab

conquest.

A

typical

example,

Qasr

Bisheir,9

was

approximately

square

(the

sides

varying

from

54'45

to

57-05 m),

with

curtains

6-50

m

high,

lined

with two

storeys

of

rooms

surrounding

a court.

The

gateway,

2-65

m

wide and over

3

m

high,

is covered

by

a lintel below

a

relieving

arch;

it

occupies

half

the space between a pair of rectangular towers 6 m wide. Three-storeyed corner towers, some

I I

or

12

m

square, project slightly

more

than

3

m

from the

curtains.

Vaulting

is the normal

method

of

ceiling--inevitably

on this

timberless

edge

of

Jordan.

Diocletian's

palace

at

Split,

with its

internal

divisions,

is

basically

like

a

magnified

and

sumptuous

version of

a

castrum.Each entrance to

the

oblong

enclosure

is flanked

by

a

pair

of

octagonal

towers,

and

a

rectangular

tower

intervenes

on either

side

between them

and

the

much

larger

corner

towers,

which

are

square

and

almost

separate

from the

curtains. Each of

the

remaining gateways

is

groovedI'

to receive

a

portcullis,

which could have

been

nearly 13

cm thick.

Perhaps

in

imitation of

Split,

the

'Porta Caesarea'

at

the

neighbouring

city

of Salona

was outflanked

by octagonal

towers."

The

triple

entrance,

as

rebuilt

about

350,

contained

a

narrow corridor

to

either

side of

a

central

passage,

3-95

m

wide,

which

must have been

gated

at a wooden door-frame fixed into recesses at least 20 cm deep and 38 cm wide-dimensions

inconceivable

for a

portcullis.

Two coins issued

between

355

and

36I

define

a terminus

post

quem

for the

construction

and

brief

occupation

of a frontier

fort

at

Pagnik

Oreni

on the

Euphrates.12

The enclosure

(FIG. 2)

7

Monneret de

Villard,

Archeologia 95

(i953)

96

pl.

34-

8 von

Petrokovits,

JRS

6i (1971)

I78-218

analyses

late

Roman fortifications

in

Europe,

relying

largely

on tower

shapes.

The

fan

shape

(184

n.

15 fig.

29.7)

is not found

in

Asia or

Africa

and seems almost

confined

to

the

4th

cent.;

Procopius

records

as anomalous its

use in

a

fort

built for

Justinian

in

Thrace

(Aed.

v

8),

and

probably

this was due

to

imitation

of a Roman

example,

such

as

could

be seen at

Abritus.

9

R.

E.

Briinnow

and

A.

Domaszewski,

Die

ProvinciaArabia

ii

(1905)

49

figs.

619-36.

10

The

grooves

were

cut before the blocks

were

laid,

but so

carelessly

that the width varies

between

13.5

and

15

cm.

11

W.

Gerber,

Forschungen

n

Salona

fig.

244.

12

Harper,

AS

21

(1971)

10o,

22

(1972)

27.








A SKELETAL

HISTORY OF BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

175

1

2

3

4

5

6

F

E

A

Xr

I

JI

Im

I I M

\3

VIY

/

1\

N

PAGNiK

RENi

971

0 10

25

M

V

2

I

x

FIG.

2.

Pagnik

Oreni.

Plan

of

excavation

(AS)

is

roughly

semicircular,

140

m

long

with

a

maximum width of

80

m,

following

contours

that

would aid defence.

The

curtains,

some

2

m

thick,

may

have been

quite

tall.

Few of them

are

appreciably

longer

than

25

m.

This shortness

(and

a

monstrous

elongation

of the

whole

perimeter)

was due to

cramming

on to the

frontage

as

many

towers

as

possible,

so

that it

allowed

of-in

fact,

called for-a much

larger

number of defenders

than

could be stationed

within as

a

garrison.

We

may confidently

assume

that

the

population

of

the whole

neighbourhood was expected to come, not merely for refuge, but to help keep every embrasure

manned

(in

spite

of

casualties)

throughout

an

assault,

using

manual

weapons

such as stones.

The

river,

just

below the

fort,

formed the

boundary

of the

aggressive

Sassanian

empire,

and

any army

it

put

across was sure to be

enormous,

with a

highly

trained

nucleus,

and well

equipped.

So the

designs

of the towers

were chosen to minimize

the effects of

siegecraft,

however

competent.

All

eleven of them are

curved,

but

they

differ

in

size and

shape;

one

is

very

shallow,

several are

semicircular,

others

apsidal

or bent like horseshoes.

Only

one was

walled at the

back,

though

all

were

roofed

upon

timbers

so

heavy

as

to make it

necessary

to

halve the

span

in

each of the wider

towers

by

means of

a

partition.

For

protection against

less

dangerous

enemies,

the

desert

fringe

of southern

Palestine received








176

A. W. LAWRENCE

a chain of

much smaller

forts,

examples

of the

type archaeologically

called

a

tetrapyrgos,13

which the

Greeks

had

used

since

the fourth

century

B.c.

Four

towers

always

project

at

right

angles

from

the

corners

of a

square

or

oblong

enclosure

(cf.

FIG.

20).

One of the

Palestinian

set

that has

been

excavated,

at

En

Boqeq,

contained

objects

datable

about

370-400.

It

measures

some 23 X28 m externally, the wall is 1-75-2 m thick, and the gateway 1-70m wide. Most of

the

interior

was left

open

as a court

but

a

few

rooms

encroached

upon

it.

The

towers,

of

roughly

6

x

4

m,

project only

about

a

metre

in

one direction but

4

m

in

the other.

The

Isaurians remained unsubdued

in

their mountains for

some

230 years

after

they

rebelled

against

Gallienus,

whose

successors,

late

in

the

third

century,

tried to

keep

them

innocuous

by building

a

ring

of

forts,

of which no

details

are

known.

The

Isaurians

became more

formidable

after three

generations

of

independence,

as is

shown

by

their

attempt

to

capture

Seleucia/Silifke

about

355.

Fear

of

a

recurrence

must

have induced

an

imperial

official,

'the

splendid

ruler of the

Eparchy

of the

Isaurians',

to secure the nearest

piece

of coast towards

the

south-east,

some

15

km

distant,

by

building

a

fortified town

at an

inlet

suitable to

be the

harbour

for a

relieving

force.14

His

inscription,

which

is

datable between

367

and

375

by

the

reigns cited, names the place Korasionnd says it had previouslybeen uninhabited. The plan

is reminiscent

of

ancient

Greek rather

than

Roman

practice;

towers,

6

or

7

m

square,

are

interposed

between short

aligned

curtains

or

attached

solely

by

a corner

to

right-angle

bends.

Supposedly

about

the

middle of

the

fourth

century

a

force of Isaurians

came

into

Pamphylia

and

began

marauding,

but

was annihilated

in

an attack

by

the

garrison

of Side.

Any

respite

gained

by

this

success

must

have

been

of

relatively

short

duration,

for

the Isaurians

soon

grew

stronger

and

acquired

military

expertise.

Letters written

in

40

I

and

the

following

years

vividly

describe

the

terror

in which

they

kept

the

population

in

their

vicinity,

while

they

constantly

raided

far

and

wide

through

Asia

Minor,

and once

even

penetrated

to

Galilee

and

Phoenicia.

Pamphylia obviously

remained

in

danger

until

Leo

I,

who

reigned

from

457

to

474,

imposed

military governorsupon it as well as upon two inland provinces throughwhich the route from

Isauria

passed.

But defensive works

had

surely

been undertaken

already,

when

it first

became

apparent

that

large

towns

might

be

attacked,

however distant

from

the raiders'

homeland;

Side would

not have

been

excepted,

since

the

garrison

was liable

at

any

time to vacate the

city

in

order

to

stop

the

plundering

of

some other

district,

and

its

Hellenistic

wall

was no

longer

defensible.

The

dilapidations

were,

in

fact,

made

good'5--thoroughly

on

the

landward

sectors,.where

new construction sometimes

begins

at

ground

level

and is

apparent

all

the

way

up

the

facing

of

a

tower;

a

back wall

also

was added

to

the towers

that

originally

had

none,

so

reinforcing

their whole structure. Entrances were either

partially

or

completely

blocked.

Alterations

of

this sort

are

found,

here

and

there,

throughout

the landward

defences,

which

extend

for

approximately

I

km. But more than

half the

enceinte

faced

seaward,

and received

only a minimum of repair although it had originally been less strongly built and must have

deteriorated

quite

as

badly; obviously

the

guards posted

along

it could obtain

help

promptly

in

case the

enemy

should mass on

a

beach outside.

The

population

of

Side at this

time-probably

late

in

the

fourth

century--apparently

was

large

enough

to

man

any

threatened

parts

of

the

wall,

even

in the

temporary

absence of

the

garrison.

Fortifications

against

Isaurian raiders are identifiable at two other cities of

Pamphylia.

The

13

The

word is

a

grammatically

undesirable

variant

of

the

Hellenistic

tetrapyrgia,

hich

may

have had a

less

restricted

meaning.

14

According

to

Strabo,

the

river

was

navigable

up

to

Seleucia

(now

nine

miles

inland)

but

this

may

have ceased to

be the

case

by

the

4th

cent.

owing

to

alluvium,

which has

formed

an

extensive

plain

around the

mouth,

accompanied

by

shoals

on

its west side.

The

steep

east

shore

may

already

have

been

preferable

as

a

landing-place

when

the

new

town

was

built

at

it.

15

A. M.

Mansel,

Die

Ruinen

onSide

(1963) plan

in

pocket;

Francis

Beaufort,

Karamania

1818)

147.








A

SKELETAL HISTORY

OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION

177

administrative

capital,

Perga,

relied

on its excellent Hellenistic

wall,

but the Roman

propylaea

in

front of

the

main

entrance could have sheltered attackers.

It

was

therefore

blocked,

and

an

extension built

on either

end,

joining

the

old

wall

behind.16

Two

rectangular

towers

(PLATE

8a)

are

conspicuous

in this

connecting

masonry,

which

is

composed

of reused

blocks;

they

remain standing to a slightly higher level than their junctions with the curtains, and are

devoid of

apertures except

at the back.

Another

predominantly

Hellenistic wall

(in

one

part

Hadrianic)

surrounded

Attaleia/Antalya,

the

seaport

for

Perga;

it was now

supplemented

by

a

proteichisma,

much of

which

(FIG.

14)

still existed less than a

hundred

years ago.17

The

manpower

required

to

defend the two lines must have

exceeded

that

previously

needed,

and

would not have

been

available

for a later

menace

than the Isaurians

presented.

The

style

too

associates the outwork

with

that

period,

for

the front

was

studded

with

little

triangular

salients

as

in a

proteichisma

at

Salonica,

which

presumably

was built either

in

the last

quarter

of the

fourth

century

or near the

middle of the fifth.

2.

TRANSITION TO THE

FIFTH

CENTURY: CORYCUS AND

SPARTA

The

Eastern

Empire

was

formally separated

from

the Western

in

395,

when

the

term

'Byzantine'

ceases to be of

questionable

validity.

The

short coast of

Rough

Cilicia,

which

has been almost

uninhabited

during

recent

centuries,

bears

an

astonishing profusion

of

both

Roman

and

Early

Christianmonuments.

But at

Corycus,

the most

westerly

of the

ancient

cities,

the ruins are

almost

exclusively

Christian;

the

pagan

buildings

there were

demolished

to obtain

material

for a

fortress,18

eaving nothing

standing

except

an

arch

that

became its

main

gateway. Lengths

of

column shafts were cut to

fit

a

wall-thickness and laid

as

stretchers to tie the

masonry;

they

occur at

fairly

regular

intervals

in

the

curtains

and abound in

towers,

some

of

which are

decoratively

studded

at half a

dozen

levels with

rows

composed

alternately

of

two

or

three

pieces

of shaft

(PLATES

b,

9a).

The

ashlar facing of the cemented rubble consists very largely of classical blocks, many of them

uniform

in

size and reused

unaltered.

Since a

large

proportion

of the

material

unquestionably

came from

temples,

the

destruction of which

was

not

permissible

till

391,

that

date

would be

a

firm

terminus

ost

quem

or

the

construction,

but for

the

possibility

that

the

emperor may

have

given

special

authorization.

A

vague

substitute for

a

terminus

nte

quem

s

supplied by

the

recorded

fact that a

period

of

abandonment

began

so

long

before

I

ioo

as

to have

made the

fortress then

unserviceable

until

repaired;

considering

the

general

excellence of the

structure,

this

delapidation

is

quite

likely

to

imply

neglect during

not less than

a

couple

of

centuries.

The

original

purpose

of

the

fortress,

and

consequently

its

age,

can

be

deduced

from its

situation

and

design.

Over

more

than a

two-hour walk

to the

north-east

a

practically

continuous

urban

population

occupied

a

narrow

strip

between the sea and

the

mountains,

but the

density

was

greater

in the half nearer

Corycus;

north-west towards Seleucia the absence

of ruins

in

the

neighbourhood

shows

that,

at

most,

only

peasantry

can

have lived

on

the

way

to

Korasion,

nearly

two

hours

away.

Obviously

Corycus

was too

peripheral

to have

been

a

refuge

for

any

but the

closest

non-combatants. But its

placing,

adjoining

an

artificially

sheltered

harbour,

was

ideal

for

a

military

outpost

at

a

time

when the

Byzantines

held command

of the

seas;

it

could be

maintained in a

hostile environment

because maximum

defensibility

had

16

K.

Lanckoronski,

Niemann,

and

Petersen,

Stddte

Pam-

phyliens

und

Pisidiens

(1890) 33 fig.

49.

17

Ibid.

9 fig- 4;

the Turkish

plan

is discussed below

with

reference

to the

early

Ioth

cent.

18

MAMA ii:

E.

Herzfeld and

S.

Guyer,

Meriamlikund

Korykos

1930)

fig.

177

etc.;

MAMA

iii:

J.

Keil

and

A.

Wilhelm,

Denkmdler

us

demRauhen

Kilikien

(1931)

102

fig. 133

pl.

42;

W.

Miiller-Wiener,

Castles

of

the Crusaders

1966) 79

pls.

11I-14;

Courtauld.








178

A. W. LAWRENCE

been conferred on some

I1

hectares

of low

plateau,

clearly anticipating

that

invaders

might

come

by

land

in

much

superior

numbers and

prepared

for a

determined

siege.

The

design

presumes

that not

less

than

about

a

hundred men

would

always

be

available

to

repel

assault,

but there was

space

inside for several

times as

many,

so the

commander could

spare

a considerable force for expeditions along the coastline or into the foothills. The prospective

enemies

are identifiable

as

Isaurians;

no others

can have been

envisaged

till the seventh

century,

when the

Arabs won and

exploited

control

of the seas with

the result that the

harbour

(an

integral

part

of

the

design)

must

have

become worse

than

useless,

and

Corycus

was

irrelevant to later

campaigns

by

land. Since the Isaurian menace

reached its

peak

by

about

400,

we

may

assume

that

the construction

of the fortress was not

postponed

(though

it

might

have

been

feasible,

under

a

strong

guard,

even

after the Isaurian

subjugation

of

the coast

towards

the

east).19

The

fortress stands beside

a

small

valley

flattened

by

alluvium,

which

shelves

into the water

of

a

bay (PLATE9b).

The builders

took full

advantage

of a terrace

of hard

rock,

the

edge

of

which

met the

valley

inland as

an

eroded

cliff,

several metres

high;

in

continuation,

they

cut

a ditcho2 with vertical sides across the terrace itself

(PLATE9a),

which extends far eastward

between

the wave-riven

shore of

the

open

sea and

the foothills of

the mountains.

Two

lines

of

defence,

a few metres

apart,

so

complemented

each

other that

they

functioned

as a unit.

The

main

wall,

with

towers,

on the surface

of the terrace

was

infinitely stronger

than

the

simple

outer

line,

which revets

the foot

of

the

cliff

till that

merges

northward

into

rising

ground,

then returns

to the sea on

the east as the

lining

of the

ditch,

and

completes

a

roughly

square

course

by

two

free-standing

sides,

the south-eastern

along

the

sea,

the south-western

along

a

beach

at

the

mouth

of the

valley

where

a harbour has silted

up.

This was

sheltered

by

a

jetty

which

projects

from

the south corner

of the

fortress;

though

it is now truncated

and

a

mere

jumble

of

stone,

in

1811 Beaufort

saw

it

whole,

'about

ioo

yards

long',

consisting

of

'great unhewn rocks', and terminated by a mass of cemented rubble behind a stone facing,

'2o

feet

square

with

pilasters

at the

corners'.

This,

he

realized,

had almost

certainly

been

the

base

of

a

lighthouse21

to

guide

ships

into

port.

They

could

safely

lie

and unload

at

the

jetty,

even

under

siege;

there

was

a

wide

gateway

through

the

outer defences at its

outset,

while

the classical

arch that forms

the

corresponding passage

through

the inner wall is

staggered

to

nearly opposite

the

middle of the

harbour

frontage.

The

plan

took

for

granted

that

the

Empire

would

always

command

the

sea.

A

first indirect reference

to

the fortress

may

possibly

be

recognized

in

Nicephorus

Patriarcha's

casual

mention22 of

an officer as

being

'the

commander

of the

army

of the Kourikiots'

n

697;

this,

however,

might

have been

a

corps

recruited

from

the

Corycus

district and

stationed

elsewhere,

especially

since

he was then

in

the

Cibyrrhaeot

theme.

The date comes

within

a period, 650-718, when the Arab fleet dominated the seas, looting and destroying towns

around

Asia Minor

and

attacking

Constantinople,

but coincides

with a lull in its

activities.

Militia

at

Corycus

should

have been

able to

prevent

raids on

the

populous

coast

between

there

and

the Lamas

river,

there

being

no other

place

suitable for

a

large

force to

disembark,

and

the

very

fact that the

inhabitants

remained numerous

enough

to

provide

an

'army'

implies

that

they

had

been

relatively

untroubled.

19

Theoretically,

the

fortress

might

have

been

built at

any

time between

39

I

(or

earlier

f the

emperor

had

granted special

leave for

demolitions)

and the rise to

power

of

an Isaurian

self-named

Zeno,

who

succeeded

his

imperial

father-in-law

in

474

and

reigned

to

491.

Anastasius

I

then launched the first

of the

campaigns

that crushed

the Isaurians.

20

The floor of the

ditch is all

above sea-level

but too

shelving

to have held water

unless

dammed.

21

Beaufort,

op.

cit.

242.

22

Migne,

Patrologia

Graeca

100

col.

940.








A

SKELETAL

HISTORY OF

BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

179

In

831

the

fall

of

Tarsus

gave

the Arabs control of the entire Cilician

plain,

which

ends

at

the

Lamas,

and

the

resultant

insecurity

in

the coastal

strip

to westward is

likely

to have

caused

mass

emigration,

because

aggression

could not be

prevented.

If

the hundreds of

men

necessary

to defend the

Corycus

fortress

ceased

to be

locally

available,

the

Byzantines

would have

been

obliged to relinquish it; in any case its utility had gone.

The

Byzantines

regained

Cilicia

in

965

and held

it

for over

a

century,

till the

Seljuks

took

it,

but the transit of the First Crusade

in

I

0oo

enabled the

Byzantines

to recover

it

again.

They

found,

so

Anna

Comnena

reports,23

that

'Kourikon,

a

city

which had

formerly

been

very

strong,

had come

in

later

times

to be

falling

into ruin'. The

statement must

apply

to

the

fortress,

not

to

the more ancient and

comparatively

negligible

city

wall. She

next

records24

that the

emperor

sent

his

officer 'Eustathius to

occupy

Kourikon

nd

rebuild

it

quickly'.

Probably

the

first

unseemly

repairs

to

the

outer

line

are

due to him.

Early

remains are

distinguishable

in

the ruins

by

their

design quite

as much

as

by

the

presence

of

classical

ingredients,

some of which

were

transferred to later alterations. The

original

main

wall

not

only

rose from a

higher

level

than

the

outer line but was also

much

taller,

even in the curtains. Towers were

dispersed unevenly,

close

together

where attack would

be

easiest,

furthest

apart

beside

the

harbour;

none

directly

faced the

open

sea.

They

were

diverse

in

width,

projection,

and

height.

The

tallest,

just

behind

the northern

extremity,

has

partially collapsed,

leaving

a

slice

intact

with a

few merlons

(perhaps

not

original).

Its summit

was

valued,

no

doubt,

for a look-out

towards

the

eastern

approaches;

in

addition,

catapults

might

have

been

mounted,

as

upon

Hellenistic

prototypes,

for

the

sake

of

the

increased

range

obtainable from

such

an

elevation.

This

supposition

could

explain

the

abnormally

and

unnecessarily long

inward

projection

of the

tower,

the front of

which faces east and

is

aligned

with the

adjoining

curtain

to the south but stands

forward

from that

to the

north;

the entire

northern

flank

was

roughly

twice

as

long

as the

part exposed,

so that

there would have been

space upon it for several catapults. None of the better-preserved towers is very far from square,

except

one at

the south-east corner

(PLATE b)

that is

pentagonal,

with

a

beak

pointing

towards

the shoreline

beyond

the

ditch.

Although

most of them rise

only

slightly

above

the

curtains,

there

are no windows on

the

fronts,

contrary

to Hellenistic

practice,

nor

many

slits;

the

roof

was

the

main

or even

sole

defensive

position.

One

almost

square

tower

(on

the

north-west)

is now

reduced to two

storeys,

though

it

must

have

had at least

one

more because

a

column-shaft

lies

as

a

stretcher

in

the

present

top

course

of

masonry.

At the

centre of the

back

(PLATE

Ioa,

b)

is

a

doorway

into

the

upper

storey,

accessible from

the

wall-walks on

both

the

adjacent

curtains,

which

differ

considerably

in

their

levels;

a

row of

huge

cantilevered blocks

(salvaged

from a

classical

cornice)

provides

a

horizontal

approach

from

the

lower curtain

to

the

threshold,

beyond

which

are smaller

cantilevered blocks

forming

separate

steps

to

the

higher

curtain.

Precedents for these two devices are known only in Hellenistic towers.

The

outer line

is the

earliest

post-classical

example

of

the

two

kinds

of

Hellenistic

proteichisma.

On

most

of

its course it

is a

free-standing,

featureless

wall

that

probably

was

not

much

higher

than a

man

(for

the

top

is

late,

of several

periods);

on the eastern side it

revetted the

scarp

of

the.

ditch

and was

continued

upward

free-standing.

Except

for the

original

tower on

the

south-east corner

where the

floor of the ditch shelves into

the

sea

(PLATE8b),

the

whole

length

of the ditch

was

probably

featureless until

long

after a final

Byzantine

withdrawal.

That occurred in

unknown

circumstances at some

date

before

1167,

by

which

time

Corycus already

belonged

to the

newly

founded Armenian

state of Cilicia.

23

Alexiad i

IoC.

24

Ibid.

ioD.

Eustathius was

ordered also

to

restore

defences

at

Seleucia/Silifke

that

are

likely

to

have

originated

before the

wars with

the

Isaurians

but been

strengthened during

them.








18o

A. W. LAWRENCE

The

subsequent

history

of

Corycus,

both

political

and

architectural,

is reserved for

a

forthcoming

issue

of

Yayla.

Here

all

that need be said is

that

both lines

of

fortification

along

the ditch became more

elaborate,

and the outer

acquired

salients that

encroached

upon

the

floor;

the

Armenians

put

a

drawbridge

across,

and

built

gateways

to serve it

through

both

the outer and the inner line. Most of the salients are in the style of western Europe and must

be works of

even later

owners,

the

Lusignan kings

of

Cyprus

or their Genoese

associates,

who

made the

final

additions

to the inner

line.

(The original

defences

of

the sector had

evidently

been

designed

to

repel unsophisticated

enemies,

and were

inadequate

against

Turks trained

to

siegecraft.)

After the

Muslim

conquest

of the

Armenians,

Corycus

was

held

as an

isolated

Christian

possession;

the

King

of France twice considered whether to use it

for

the base of

a

Crusade

to liberate them.

Eventually,

in

1448,

the

Seljuks

of Karamania

contrived

to

seize

the

fortress,

which

in

1482,

on the extinction

of

their

dynasty,

passed

to the Ottomans and

was allowed to

lapse

into

ruin.

In

many respects

Corycus

is

a

precursor

of

Justinianic

fortifications,

which likewise were

planned

for

defence

by

local,

partially

trained,

militia. For

that

reason,

the

height

of

curtains

and the size of towers at

Corycus

exceed the dimensions normal in forts

garrisoned by

the

Roman

army;25

instead,

they

followed

precedents

in

city

walls,

which must have been manned

principally

by

civilians.

The

designer

had also studied Hellenistic

remains and

may

have been

the

first

to revive their

practices,

which had

again

become

apposite

in

the

changed

conditions

of

warfare,

after five centuries of

Roman disuse.

Someone

of much less

intelligence

was

responsible

for the refortification of

Sparta26

shortly

after the devastation

by

Alaric

in

396;

the

material was collected from

destroyed

buildings

too soon for

it

to become

weathered,

and

put

together

badly,

as

though

hurriedly.

The

entire

acropolis

was

now

(FIG.

I)

enclosed with

a

new

wall

except

where

it

incorporated

the corner

built after

267

(though

with

the

gateway

transferred to

a

slightly

different

position).

There

are, however, only discontinuous, scanty vestiges, here and there. The layout included sectors

that

were,

in

turn,

convex,

concave,

and

straight.

The

towers,

of two or more

periods,

varied

in

size but all

were

larger

than

their

predecessors

beside

the older

corner;

most

were

rectangular

and

spaced

far

apart,

but

some,

obviously

added

at

a

later date

to a

rounded

salient,

were

semicircular and crowded

together.

3.

CONSTANTINOPLE

AND REGIONAL

CAPITALS,

412-C.

450

The walls

of

Constantinople

have

been

published

so

elaborately27

that there

is no occasion

to do more

than summarize the

general

design

of each successive

scheme-in

the

past

tense

to allow for their

more or less ruined

condition. Most

of the circuit

(FIGS.

3, 4, 5)

originated

during

the

(largely

nominal) reign

of Theodosius

II,

408-50.

First,

in

412,

the

construction

began

of a

single

wall

over

7

km

long,

on the landward

boundary

of the

city

from the Sea

of

Marmara

to

the Blachernae suburb

(beyond

which

an older

wall was retained

to the

Golden

Horn).

The

curtains,

some

5

m

thick,

were

not less

than

Io

m

high

at

the

wall-walk,

upon

which stood

a

crenellated

parapet

2

m

high;

the

merlons were

extended

backward

by

short

traverses,

a

means

of reinforcement

and

shelter

for

defenders

that

may

have been

common ever

since the Greeks invented it

(probably

in

the fourth

century B.c.), though

25

Exceptional

dimensions

in the citadel

at

Old

Cairo

(S.

Toy, History

of

Fortification

1955)

54)

could have

provided

for

the

occasional

depletion

of

the

garrison

to subdue trouble

in

the

provinces;

it was the

headquarters

of the

army

in

Egypt.

26

Cf.

n.

4.

27

Die

Landmauer

on

Konstantinopel(1938)

by

F. Krischen-

generalities

and

drawings

restoring original

condition

of

Theodosian

walls;

ii

(i943)

by

B.

Mayer-Plath

and

A. M.

Schneider-piecemeal

survey.








A

SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

181

inevitably very

few

examples

are

preserved.

Double staircases

(of

the

type

now called

Palladian)

were bonded to the inward face of the

wall;

their

converging flights,

a

couple

of

metres

wide,

climbed

upon

arches of

graduated heights

to

a

landing

level with

the

walk,

precisely

as is

shown

in a

Roman

painting

of

an

amphitheatre. Gateways

were

approached

through

the

tallest

arch,

at the centre of

the

thirty-metre support. Towers, spaced usually

60o

to

70

m

apart,

projected

some

io

m

forward from the curtains

and rose

5-6

m

higher,

with

an

external

o9--

50

M

FIG.

3.

Constantinople.

Plan of

Theodosian

system

and final

ditch

(Landmauer)

stair

up

to the

roof,

which was lined with a

crenellated

parapet.

The

towers were

alternately

rectangular,

of

I

o-

I

m

a

side,

and

octagonal

of similar

dimensions,

but no

military advantage

seems to have resulted from this

differentiation;

it

made

the

appearance

more

interesting.

The

lower

part

of each

tower,

opposite

the

curtains,

contained

a

vaulted

room

lit

by

windows too

far out of reach from the floor to have

been intended for

defence;

it was usable for

storage

or

barracks,

and

a

postern

opened

through

the

right

flank,

but the

overriding

purpose

must have

been to save material

in

the structure.

An

upper

room,

entered

from the walk

along

the

curtains,

was

provided

with a

variable number of windows for

catapults;

it was

5

m

high,

normally barrel-vaulted or, if octagonal, domed. The main gateways pierced a curtain between

rectangular

towers

except

in

the case of the

Adrianople

Gate,

where the towers were

hexagonal-probably

not for

military

reasons but to add interest

to

their

appearance.

Aesthetic

as well

as

practical

considerations

may

also have influenced the decision

to face the mortared

rubble of the

wall

with limestone blocks

or

with

dark-red

brickwork,

interrupted

at

several

levels

by

bands

comprising

five courses of

pale

yellow

bricks,

which

go

all the

way

through

for

bonding.

An

earthquake

in

447

wrecked

fifty-seven

towers,

as is not

surprising

in

view of the size

and

height

of the

upper

rooms,

so

great

was the thrust that their

massive

vaulting

could

exert

when

shaken. Their restoration was

undertaken

immediately,

and

accompanied

by

the

building








182

A.

W. LAWRENCE

,

.1o

2

M.

FIG.

4.

Constantinople.

Section of

Theodosian

system

with

rectangular

towers

(Landmauer)

of

a

low outer wall with

small

towers,

more resistant to

shock;

presumably

it

was intended

to

minimize the risk that breaches caused by some future earthquake might again invalidate the

entire

defensive

system.

The

two walls were

separated

by

a

space

of

13-50

m,

reduced to less

than

4

m

where towers

protruded.

No

classical

precedent

for

an

outer wall is known

(unless

a

free-standing

proteichisma

at

Selinus should so rank because of salients that resembled towers

in

plan).

The Asiatic

peoples

had built

strong

outer walls from the Bronze

Age

to the sixth

century

B.C.28

when

one

of

exceptional magnitude

was included

in

the defences of

Babylon,

of which

educated

Byzantines

must

have

read,

for

they

were described

by

Herodotus and

28

There

is no

evidence for

recrudescence

in

Parthian

times;

the

outer

line

at Hatra

seems

a

mere

proteichisma,

I130

m

thick,

with

only

one

visible

salient.








A


FORTIFICATION

183

5

.

9

.

. . .

FIG.

5.

Constantinople.

Section of

Theodosian

system

with

octagonal

and

apsidal

towers,

and

plans

at two

levels

(Landmauer)

later

authors,

down

to

Strabo.

Only

if

there

were

oriental features at

Constantinople

that

could not have been derived from these ancient sources would it be

reasonable

to

postulate

an unverified addiction to outer walls

in

the Sassanian

empire,

then the

dominant

power

in

Western Asia outside the Byzantine territory. In fact, though, the structure at Constantinople

followed

classical,

not

Asiatic,

precedents

in

its most notable features. The wall was solid to

the

exiguous

thickness

of

1.30

m,

and

backed

with a

series of blind

arches,

spanning

the

intervals

of

2

m

between

piers

that

projected

3

m,

in

a

manner

found

in

both

Hellenistic

and

Roman

examples

and,

perhaps contemporaneously,

around the

monastery

of

Daphni

(see

Appendix).

Slits

through

the

frontage-one

at

the centre of each

arch-gave

overlapping

fields of fire. The

walk,

4

m

wide behind the

parapet,

stood at

a

mean

height

of

only

4

m

above the interval between the two

walls,

but a

drop

in

the

ground

almost doubled it

externally,

with the

masonry

of the lower

part

forming

a

revetment to the

curtains,

though

it was

free-standing

at

the

very

base of the

towers,

which

projected

in

their

entirety.

The same effect








184

A. W. LAWRENCE

would

have resulted

if

a

proteichisma

that lined the

scarp

of

a

ditch had

been

studded with

towers;

we do not know whether there

had

been

any

actual

instance

of that

scheme,

but the

designer clearly

was

thinking

of

a

proteichisma

such as often rose

from

the

floor

of

a

ditch,

revetting

the

scarp,

and

continued

free-standing.

He

may

conceivably

have

complied

with that

practice and set his foundations in a ditch, which would have been obliterated when

(supposedly

c.

iooo)

that now visible was

given

its

final

dimensions,

for the enormous amount

of

spoil

extracted

on

each

occasion seems to have been

spread evenly

on the

intervening

space,

the berm. This

conjecture

could

explain

why

the outer towers were

equipped

to shoot

only

to

a

fairly long

distance-no

slits were

provided

below

a

vaulted room entered

from

the

wall-walk,

and

its

roof

platform

was the

major

defensive

position.

The inner towers

all

overlooked

curtains of the outer

wall and

bore

most

of

the

responsibility

for

its

defence;

the

towers

of the outer wall stood

opposite

the middle of

curtains

in

the inner

wall,

and

were

alternately

rectangular

and

apsidal

in

accordance

with the taste for

repetitive

variation

manifested

in

the

original

Theodosian

system.

At entrances

a

simple gateway through

the

outer

wall was

aligned

with that

in

the

inner,

and a court was

formed,

bounded

on each side

by

a

little

two-storeyed

building

and a door between it and the front of the

original

flanking

tower.

At

Carthage,

which

the

Romans had

deliberately

left

unfortified,

a

city

wall was

built

in

425;

it was

neglected

during

the

Vandal

occupation

but

repaired

in

533 by

Belisarius,

who

is stated to have

accompanied

it with

a ditch. Two ditches

have

been found

by

excavation;29

the older was of

an

undetermined

width not less

than 18

m,

the

later

of

not

less than

Io

m.

Silt

evidently

had so choked

the older before

533

that clearance was not

worthwhile,

and

Belisarius

dug

a

replacement.

His

wall,

of

rubble,

was faced with

large

squared

blocks,

which

brought

the

thickness

to

3-5

m.

There was

at

least

one

tower,

of

which the base alone

remains,

as

is

the

case with

any

scrap

of

ruin at the

pillaged

site

of

Carthage.

The

rectangular

towers

that

project

from the north wall of

Salona30

were built

after

434,

probably before 450; an extraordinarily close spacing compensated for their modest dimensions,

particularly

height. They

are outside the field

of this

study,

since

Dalmatia then

belonged

to

the

Western

Empire,

but the

revolutionary

character of

Theodosian

principles

could

scarcely

be better

illustrated than

by

this wholesale

contravention of them.

The

perimeter

at

Thessalonica/Salonica

may

have been as

long

as

the Theodosian wall of

Constantinople,

but there

are

scarcely

any

remains

except

on the

north and

east,

where

roughly

half consists of medieval

and Turkish

repairs, replacements,

or additions. The

original

work

includes

many

bricks with the same

stamps

as

in

local

churches ascribed to

the late

fourth or

early

fifth centuries.

The

circuit

has

commonly

been

associated with the

residence

of Theodosius

I

at the

city

in

379

and some later

years,

to direct

campaigns

against

the

Goths,

who were

ravaging

the

Balkans from sea

to

sea.

An

inscription

attributes the

construction to

Hormisdas, who was identified without question as an official of that time until Vickers, in

1969,

proposed

a

namesake

of the mid

fifth

century;

in

the

controversy

that

ensued,

Vickers

cited

the

prevalence

of

brick-stamps

dated to

an

indiction which

could be

that

of

447-8.31

Meanwhile one

piece

of

the circuit was found to

be

merely

a thick

facing

applied

to a Roman

city

wall,32

and

in

other

parts

the

masonry

of a Hellenistic

predecessor

is

exposed; opportunities

for such economical

medleys

of old and new

may

have affected

planning

to

a

greater

extent

than

now

appears.

But the actual course

along

the north and east of the

city33

was

29 AJ 55 (1975)

36;

57 (1977)

255;

Excavations

t

Carthage.

The

BritishMission

i

(forthcoming)

30

J.

J.

Wilkes,

Dalmatia

(1969)

360, 418.

31

Vickers,

Makedhonika2

(1972)

228;

BSA68

(1973)

292.

32 Tsigaridas,

ADelt

28

(1973)

Chron.

479

fig.

I

pls.

434-42.

33

Ch.

Diehl, Tourneau,

and

Saladin,

Les

Monuments

hritiens

de

Salonique

0-1

14

summarize Tafrali's

survey, Topographie

e

Thessalonique;

is scale has

been

falsified

in

reproduction

of the

plans.








A

SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION

185

predetermined,

within a

few

metres,

by

the

topography.

The wall on the north

overlooks

a

deep

inland

valley;

where the descent is

very steep,

the defences

along

the

verge

can

fairly

be termed

perfunctory,

but

they

become

progressively stronger

above

gentler slopes

as

they

approach

the

north-east

corner,

from which the citadel

juts

out;

they

are

even

stronger

on the east, beside a shallow valley draining to the sea. So the design, though basically

uniform,

could not be

exactly

repeated throughout,

as on the

comparatively

even terrain

at

Constantinople.

The towers varied

in

size and

height,

and were

spaced

diversely. Nearly

all

of

them

were

rectangular, two-storeyed,

and

open

to the

rear;

they

must have been

spanned

by

removable wooden

flooring,

a

precautionary

device of

Hellenistic

origin.

Occasional

V-shaped

salients were

cheap

substitutes for

towers;

the

apex,

at least

in

one

instance,34

was

incompletely

partitioned

from the

open

remainder of the

back,

leaving

a

gap

of

3

m

to

be

bridged.

The

predominant

building

material was

rubble,

but towers were

coigned

with

brick,

and brick is

interposed

in

curtains,

either

to

form bands

(composed

of

three,

four,

or five

courses)

at

vertical intervals

of

I'30-I'50

m,

or

in

superimposed

rows of

relieving

arches.

A

proteichisma, quite likely

to be

contemporary,

may

have existed wherever the nature of

the

ground

outside would

encourage

attack,

but

very

little of it has

survived,

running

parallel

with the curtains at a distance

of

13

m,

and

about

2

m

thick;34

there must have been

a

walk

along

the

top,

behind

a

crenellated

parapet.

4.

TOWNS WITH

MASSIVE

PROTEICHISMA,

MID OR LATE FIFTH

CENTURY

The

fragmentary

proteichisma

to which the

preceding

sentence

refers

might conceivably

have

been later

than the

wall of Salonica but the

likelihood

that it

was

contemporaneous

is

enhanced

by

the

existence

of

better-preserved analogies

that date from the fifth

and sixth

centuries.

There was

clearly

a

vogue

then for this

type

of

outwork,35

which

may

have

been

regarded

as a

relatively

cheap

substitute

for an

outer

wall

like that built

at

Constantinople

in or soon after 447. The Hun invasions of the Balkans gave cause for other precautions, such

as the

narrowing

of

old

gateways,36

but the

predominant

need must have

been

for

outworks

to

impede

attack on

the

wall,

because the

enemy

came

in

numbers liable

to

overpower

its

defenders.

Significance

should

possibly

be

attached

to

the

fact that

most

examples

of a

thick

proteichisma

have

been found

in

Bulgaria,

where the

prevalence

of

woodland must

have

encouraged

invaders

hurriedly

to

improvise enough

crude

ladders for simultaneous

escalade

all

around the

frontage.

(But

Salonica is

in a

treeless

neighbourhood.)

The

thickness

in

Bulgaria

was

commonly

about

1.50

m,

while at

Salonica it was

2

m;

men

could

pass

one

another

on

the

walk,

for a

parapet

seldom

occupied

more than

50

cm.

Stairs

rose

parallel,

like

those beside

curtains,

their

landings

expanding

the walk

inwards. The

height

must

have varied at

every

town

in

accordance

with that

of

the

wall

behind,

from which it

would be overshot, also with the width of the intervening ground and its slope (if any). At

an

unflanked

entrance to

Augusta

Traiana/Stara

Zagora,37

the

exceptionally

thick

(2

m)

proteichisma

keeps

barely 4

m

distant from the

much older

wall,

and the

junctions

of this

interval with

the

passage

were

gated;

so, too,

was the

mouth,

between

out-turned

endings

of

the

proteichisma.

Less

untypically,

at

Diocletianopolis/Hisar38

the

interval is

slightly

over

Io

m

wide

except

where older

rectangular

towers

project

more than

half-way

across it

(FIG.

6).

At

Vojvoda39

there

is a

similar interval in front

of

older

curtains,

but a

shallow curvature

34

ADelt 26

(I97i)

Chron.

374

fig.

4;

BCH

98

(i974)

507

fig.

2.

35

Oviarov,

Arheologia

5

4

(1973)

II,

(in

French) 23.

36

Ivanov,

Arheologia

5 4

24,

(in

French) 34,

figs. 5-6.

37

Ibid.

15

fig.

4.

38

Ibid.

178

figs.

6-8.

39

Ibid.

14

fig.

3;

Milkev

and

Damjanov, BIABulg23

(1972)

263,

(in

French)

276,

figs.

1-8.








186

A.

W.

LAWRENCE

o'43

oo3

0

o.

FIG.

6.

Diocletianopolis.

(a)

Section

of N.

defences

near corner

(Arheologia); (b)

Plan of N.

defences

at

entrance

(Arheologia)

takes

the

proteichisma

outwards and back

again

around towers of

a

horseshoe

shape, passing

them

at a distance of little over

2

m

(FIG. 7).

The outward

curve is

prolonged past

the whole

front of one such tower, and then the proteichisma continues in a straight line to and beyond

its own

gateway;

here it was backed

by

a

pair

of

guardrooms,

and

the rear of one was attached

to the horseshoe tower

while the other's rear met

an

almost

circular tower that

projected

off

a corner of the

enceinte,

so

that

together they

bounded

a court outside the

main

gateway

through

the wall.

At all

these

three sites outer and inner

gateways

were

aligned

and

given

a uniform

width

of

about

3

m;

at

Vojvoda

the

width had

originally

been

3'45

m. Otherwise

the scheme of each

proteichisma

differs,

though

merely

to

fit with the diverse

patterns

of the

older

remains;

the same basic

principles

governed

the new

design

in

every

instance. None

is

precisely

datable. But the

discovery

of

ninety-two

coins

at

Vojvoda

proves

that

the work there

was done not earlier

than

457

nor

appreciably

later than

477.








A

SKELETAL

HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION

187

0

40

FIG.

7.

Vojvoda.

Plan

of defences at entrance and

postern

(Arheologia)

0

5m

FIG.

8.

Dyrrhachium.

Plan at

upper

level and section

of

Tower

'D'

(Monumentet)

5.

THE

REIGN

OF

ANASTASIUS

I, 491-518

This

emperor, according

to

Suidas,

built new

fortifications

at

his

birthplace,

Dyrrhachium/

Durres,

and

surely

no one else would have

afforded

the row of four monstrous

pentagonal

towers,40

of

which

two are still

in fair

condition

(FIG.8)

and

only

one

hopelessly

ruined. The

proportions

are as

extraordinary

as

the size. The

beak,

which

normally

contributes

little to

a tower's

projection,

here

constitutes

(on

average)

two-thirds of

it,

the

slanting

faces

being

nearly

II

m

long,

so that the

shape

would have been

attenuated

if

the

rectangular

portion

towards the rear were not exceptionally wide-about 16 m, which is 4 m more than the

distance to

which

the beaks

project

from the curtains. One

tower, 'B',

is still

14

m

high,

and

the

other, 'D',

13

m.

Externally

each has a

pronounced

(but dissimilar)

batter

below

the

upper

storey,

where the wall-thickness is

3

m.

The lower

storey

is

blind;

its

height

was

7-50

m in

'B',

9-80

m

in

'D',

under the wooden floor

of the

upper

room. This was

practically

triangular

and measures

in

each tower almost

I

o

x

7

m. Vaulted embrasures

diverge

from

it;

each is

I.55

m

wide and

2-15

m

high

till it meets an

arched

encroachment of

masonry,

48

cm

thick,

which frames a tall

window,

64

cm

wide

(enough

to

expand

the

range

of a

catapult

and its

40

Bace,

Monumentet

9 (1975) 5,

(in

French) 29;

Rey,

Albania

I

(1925) 33-








188 A. W. LAWRENCE

arc

of

fire).

One such

opens

through

either flank at

right

angles

to

a

curtain,

a

pair through

either

slanting

face of the

beak,

and

one

through

the

pointed extremity.

So the

disposition

provided

a

minimum of

fire-power

along

the

curtains but a

concentration,

more

oblique

than

straight

forward,

against

enemy beginning

their advance. The beak was

designed

for

that

purpose.

Allegedly

in

512,

Anastasius reconstructed

a

barrier-wall

(probably

less than

a

century old)

all the

way

between

the

coasts

of the

Marmara and Black

Seas;41

t

must have

been

over

50

km

long, allowing

for

the

windings

that took

it

to

militarily advantageous

terrain. The

Byzantines

long kept

it

in

repair,

and the remains have not been

studied to

distinguish

Anastasius' from later

work.

Procopius42

describes alterations

by

Justinian,

prior

to

which

there was

a

continuous

walk

upon

the

curtains,

passing through

the

towers and

accessible

only by

stairs within them.

In

the

brief duration

of

a

truce with

the

Sassanians,

made

in

5o6,

the

emperor

contravened

its terms

by

the

hasty

transformation

of

a

place

near the frontier

in

Mesopotamia

into a

city,

which

he

called

Anastasiopolis;

it

soon

reverted to

its old

name,

Dara.

He

gave

it43

a double

circuit of

walls,

both

quite

low but

especially

the

outer,

presumably

after the model of

Constantinople.

The

towers of

the

inner

wall

were of

faulty

construction

which could not

withstand the

weather,

and

Justinian

was

obliged

to rebuild

or

envelop

many

of

them. He

also increased

the

heights throughout

both walls.

6.

THE

REIGN

OF

JUSTINIAN,

527-565

The

number of fortifications built

or renovated

for

Justinian surpassed

the total

in all

other

Byzantine

periods

combined.

They

have

left

a

corresponding

abundance

of

ruins

in

no

fewer

than

nine

modern

countries,

but

relatively

few

have been

studied,

and those

rarely

in

such

detail

that

Justinianic

work

can

be

distinguished

from

previous

or

subsequent

elements;

that

is partly because its character differed in each theatre of war in order to match the ability

and resources of

the

specific enemy

encountered

there.

Comparatively

weak

defences

could avert

attack

by

the

unsophisticated

natives

of

North

Africa,

whose

initial

rising

came

immediately

after

Belisarius'

conquest

of

the

Vandal

kingdom

and was

followed

by

an

interminable

series of

others;

the extreme

mobility

of

these tribesmen

frustrated

attempts

to

crush

them

and

their

opportunities

for

raiding

settled communities

were

unlimited

because

demolition

by

the

Vandals,

to

prevent

rebellion,

had made Roman

city

walls

untenable;

the

Byzantines

did

not restore

them,

because

the area enclosed would

have

been

over-large

for

a

diminished

population.

Some

towns

actually

lay

empty,

but were

likely

to

revive

if

safe

from molestation.

Two means

of

protection

were

adopted:

the

Byzantines

built

either

a

town

wall

or

a fort

capacious enough

to

be

a

refuge,44

and seem

generally

to

have

installed

a

garrison

at

every

inhabited

place

as well

as

at some

of

purely

military

importance.

Contemporary

iterature

and

inscriptions

assign

many

of these

works

to

Justinian's

reign,

others

are

stylistically

related,

and

all these

must have been

due

to

a

few

engineers

who

expressed

the

wishes

of

the

successive

military governors

he

appointed.

Each enceinte45

was

built,

wherever

feasible,

of reused material

and

incorporated

any

older

41

Harrison,

Archaeologia

eliana4

7

(1969)

33.

42

Aed. iv

9.

43

Aed.

ii

I

4;

Bell.

i

1o

13-14,

ii

13

17-18.

44

An

unwalled

town,

Sufetula/Sbeitla,

contained five

residential

towers

dispersed

on the

approaches

to the

fort.

They

vary

in size

up

to some

20

m

square

and were

two or

three

storeys high;

each

floor

was

divided

into a

large

number

of

rooms,

entered

through open-fronted

porches

from

a

colonnaded

court. D.

Pringle,

The

Defence

of ByzantineAfrica

(1981)

142

figs.

48a,

b;

Ch.

Diehl,

L'Afrique

byzantine 1896)

fig.

66.

45

Data,

plans,

and

illustrations were

assembled

in

Diehl,








A

SKELETAL

HISTORY

OF

BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

189

structure that

could

profitably

be

adapted;

for

instance,

the

city

wall

of

Theveste/Tebessa,

built

in

535

around an area a

quarter

of that enclosed

by

its

predecessor,

kinked outward

to

a

triple

arch of

Caracalla,

which was converted into a tower

covering

a

minor

gateway.

The

side of a basilica was

loopholed

and battlemented to

fit

into

the

wall

of

Ammaedara

(or

Ammoudara) Haidra.46Where a fort occupied part of an ancient city, the new wall often did

no more than connect several Roman

buildings, preferably

those around the

forum. Most

other

forts

resemble

a

fortified town

except

in

area,

though

actually

it

is

impossible

to

distinguish

between a small town and a

large

fort. No enclosure was

given

the same

dimensions

as

any

other;

sometimes these were

governed by

the

topography,

more often

by

anticipation

of the number

of

occupants,

whether habitual residents or

temporary refugees. Comparatively

tiny

forts,

of the conventional

tetrapyrgos pattern,

were

perhaps

reserved

for a

garrison. Very

rarely

was

part

of a

town divided from the

rest,

conceivably

for that

purpose.

Uniquely

complex

divisions at

Bagai

are not

explicable

with

certainty.47

Unless

a

deviation to include ancient

or recent

buildings

was

worthwhile,

a

fortification

normally

(terrain

permitting)

comprised

a

rectangle

of curtain-walls

with

a

much taller tower

on each corner and others at

fairly regular

intervals. Towers were

occasionally

rounded or

polygonal,

usually rectangular,

and

two-storeyed,

the

lower room

being

often

vaulted

but

the

upper

floored

with

boards. Some

principles

for

details

are

stated

in

an

anonymous

manual

known

as De

Strategica

r

Tactica,

written for commanders

in

any

theatre

of

war,

apparently

by

an officer

who had

served under

Belisarius. The dimensions he

approves

for a

wall

give

it

a thickness

of not less

than

5

cubits

(strictly

2.3I

m)

and

a

height

of

20

cubits

(9'24 m);

actual

examples

in

Africa

vary

from

8-o5

to

Io

m.

The

walls

there were

either solid

(of

rubble

faced

with cut

stone)

or else lined with a

series of

arches;

the walk

(often

extended

by

corbelling)

might

be

edged by

a

curb

within,

while

the

parapet

rose about

twice as

high (to

some

1.50

m)

at the

merlons as

in

the embrasures.At

Tebessa,

both towers

flanking

the main

gate

had

lost their tops before photographs were taken,48showing the lower ends of slits that seem to

have

pierced

a

set

of

lost

merlons,

as

in

the

cross-wall

at

Side.

(The

French,

however,

arbitrarily

restored

a

continuous

parapet

with

a

level

coping throughout.)

The

gateway

itself,

a

simple

op.

cit. and

S.

Gsell,

Monuments

ntiques

de

l'Algirie

(1901);

L.

Leschi,

L'Alglrie

antique

1952)

has the best

photographs.

K. A. C.

Creswell,

A ShortAccount

f

Early

Muslim

Architecture

(1958)

178

disputes

Diehl's

accounts of

Thignica/Ain Tounga

and

Ksar-Bellezma.

Data

on

Libya

were collected

by

Good-

child,

Corsi di

Cultura ull'ArteRavennate

izantina

13

(1966)

232-43;

his

fig.

2

restores a

gateway

at

Leptis Magna

(with

lintel)

between

rectangular

towers.

Pringle

op.

cit.,

is

an

authoritative historical and

archaeological summing-up,

which

I

did

not

see

till

my

text was

unalterable,

but it

would

have entailed no

changes, only

additions.

46

It is

drawn on the extreme

right

of Saladin's

generally

trustworthy

restoration

(Ch.

A.

Julien,

Histoire

de

l'Afrique

du

Nord

(I931)

fig. 155;

Diehl,

Manuel d'art

byz.

fig.

90).

This

north end of

Haidra,

facing

the road that

ascends

to

the

Algerian

frontier,

was

remodelled

by

the Tunisians

in

the i6th

cent.

as a

strong

fortification

in

the

style

then

prevalent.

The

Byzantine

enceinte,

which is

otherwise well

preserved,

must

have been

intended

only

for

the same

purpose,

of

repelling

invaders,

because the

surrounding country

is

practically

uninhabitable,

growing

nothing

but scrub. That no

intensive

siege

was

anticipated

is

obvious

from

the

inadequate

wall-

thickness;

on

three sectors

it is

reduced also between a

series

of

buttresses,

which are linked to

support

the

walk,

some

by

arches,

some

by

lintels.

Diehl,

L'Afriquebyz. 196

figs. 34-5

pls.

v-vi;

von

Petrokovits,

JRS

6i (1971)

202

n.

45; Pringle,

op.

cit.

180

fig.,

18 pls.

i-iv.

47

The

deserted

town of

Bagai regained

inhabitants when

a

somewhat

irregular

area

of

over

300

m

each side was

surrounded

by

a

Justinianic

wall,

which

remained,

when

surveyed,

distinct in

outline but so ruined

that no

gateways

were

recognizable.

One

rectangular

and three round towers

stood at the

corners;

the

twenty-one

intermediate

towers,

all

rectangular,

varied

in

size for no

perceptible

reason.

The site

occupies

a

slight

eminence amid a

plain.

On the

summit,

an

apparent

citadel

of

74

x

63

m

might possibly

have been

an

initial

defence

for the

builders. It

lay

behind both

the

wall

and a shallow

parallel

outwork,

suggestive

of a

proteichisma,

which

might

have been entered at a little

salient

in

front or

else

laterally

through

a

tower-like excrescence from the wall.

Probably

there was

a

gateway

in

the wall

midway

in

the

interval

(15

m)

between

a

pair

of

towers

(about

7

m

square)

that

projected

into

the

outwork,

off

the corners

of

a court

(26

m

square)

that

was contained

within

the citadel and

may

have formed an inner

entrance.

Diehl,

op.

cit.

152, 292, figs.

5,

31-2; Pringle,

op.

cit.

183-5

fig.

21.

48

Diehl,

op.

cit.

pl.

iv,

before

restoration; Leschi,

op.

cit.

6o; Gsell,

op.

cit. ii

fig. 154

pl.

xcvi.








I90

A. W. LAWRENCE

arch

abutting

on the

towers,

was

overhung by

a

triple

box-machicouli,49

of

which likewise

the base alone remained

prior

to

another

misguided

restoration.

The De

Strategicaxii.

5-9)

recommends

anyone

who fortifies

a town to enhance its

security

by

means of outworks.

A

proteichisma

will block the

approach

of mantlets or

rams-unlikely

to have been used in Africa-and enable them to be attacked there instead of at the wall; it

will also

provide

a

refuge

for

people

who flee from the

countryside

and would otherwise

congest

the

town,

and

they

themselves

will defend it.

If

the

ground

outside the

proteichisma

is

flat,

a ditch should be

dug

to

a

width

of not less

than

40

cubits,

and to

a

greater depth

than the

base of the wall so

that

tunnels

dug by enemy miners-probably

none

existed

in

Africa-will

emerge

there

in

the

open.

The earth extracted

from the ditch

should be carried

back and

spread

between the

proteichisma

and the

wall,

making

a

platform

that will be

higher

all

along

than the

enemy

position.

If

the town stands

on a

hill,

a

cutting

should be made

at a

distance

of

30

or

40

cubits out from

the

wall,

not less

than

3

cubits

wide,

and the earth

from

it

must

be

piled

in

two banks which

will hinder

enemy

approach;

the

author seems to

mean that the

cutting

forms

a

trench

that

separates

the

banks,

with

a

steep

side

close to each

of them.

An

outwork of this kind would have been

particularly

valuable as an obstruction to mantlets or

rams,

and

might

be

thought

superfluous

in

Africa;

actually

none

is known

in

any country,

probably

because

natural

processes

tend

to blur the distinctive

shape.

Ditches soon become

choked and

may

therefore

not have been

as rare

in

Tunisia and

Algeria

as now

appears;

there

are

many

in

Libya.

No

proteichisma

can

be seen

at a vast

majority

of

African

sites,

but

in

some cases the

thin

masonry,

composed

of

large

reused

blocks,

may

have

disintegrated

above

the

present

ground

level;

in

fact,

an

example

at

Taucheira/Tocra

has been reduced to

a

succession of isolated

fragments

and is

recognizable

only

because

they

are

aligned, keeping

a

straight

course

regardless

of whether it is

parallel

with

an

originally

Hellenistic but renovated

curtain

or

passes

the beak

of a

wholly Justinianic pentagonal

tower.

In Bulgaria a proteichisma is a common adjunct to fortresses built in the sixth century,

mainly

under

Justinian

(whose

successorsare credited

only

with

repairs).

The

lasting

cohesion

of cemented

rubble,

the

habitual

material,

has

probably

accentuated

an

original

contrast

with

practice

in

Africa,

which

responded

to

a

very

different

type

of warfare.

The

Bulgars (who

individually

were more

formidable

than

Berbers)

made seasonal

raids

in

great

force southward

from the

Danube,

looting

the

territory (then Byzantine)

which

has come to bear

their name

owing

to settlement

by

their

descendants.

Attacks with immense

numerical

superiority

should

have almost

guaranteed

the

capture

of fortressesheld

by

local

militia

if

the wall was

easily

approached;

a

proteichisma

would,

at

least,

delay

access

to it. There is

an

extreme

instance

at Sadovsko

Kale,50

a

village

(FIG. )

built for

Goths,

farmers who

also served the

Byzantines

as

militia;

they

could

scarcely

have

hoped

to defend

it but for

a

proteichisma

(or

rather,

outer

wall, for it is

I-80

m thick)

along

the west side and south end, which alone were not

adequately

protected

by

a

steep drop.

The inner

wall,

over 8o

m

long,

was no

more than

1'70

m

thick

but

backed

by

a

continuous

row of seventeen

cottages, apparently

two-storeyed;

the south end is

attached to

a

pentagonal

tower,

which was slewed so

that one corner reached

within

4

m

of

the

entrance,

a

simple

gateway through

the

proteichisma.

The street

in

front of the

cottages

(and

ultimately

between

them and four

more)

was entered

by

a

gate

between

the east facet

of the tower and the end of

the

proteichisma;

close behind

it is the

doorway

of the

tower

(the

ground

floor of which

was used as a

workshop).

Coins

prove

that

occupation began

in

49

Grand

houses near the

Syrian

Desert

were

already

safeguarded

by

single

machicoulis,

either

rectangular

or

half-

cylindrical (J.

Mattern,

Villes

mortes

e haute

Syrie34 fig.

9

pl.

xxxi

2;

AASOR

25-8

(1925)

8

fig. 6).

50

Welkov,

Germania

19

(I935)

149 figs.

2-3,

13-15-








192

A.

W.

LAWRENCE

almost

every

hilltop

bore

a

tower,

surrounded

only by

a

ditch54

(nor

is

a

wall visible

beside

the

ditch

that encircles

Biiyiik

Kale,

the

admittedly

later

tetrapyrgos

and beacon

in

Bulgaria).

These look-out

posts

were

intervisible,

so that

intelligence

of

enemy

movements

could be

transmitted

by

a code of

signals.

Most define the

regular

frontier

of

military activity

in

wasteland behind the habitable coastline, but some are clusteredon the approachesto specific

places.

Around the town of

Boreum,55

walled

by Justinian,

lie the ruins of at least twelve

towers within

a

radius

of

5

km,

and one

larger (of

31

x

27

m)

stood at

a

distance of

io km.

Procopius'

statement

that

Justinian

made Boreum

'as safe as

possible,

together

with the

whole

country

round about

it',

dates

most,

if

not

all,

of

them,

and

hints

that

they

were manned

from the

garrison

at the town.

These

systems

followed

the Roman

pattern

of surveillance but

with

an

increased number

of

outposts;

the

openness

of the

arid

landscape,

of

course,

invited

such treatment.

Alterations of

Byzantine

character

were made

at Salona

shortly

before

Justinian

took

possession

of

Dalmatia.

The

city

wall had been well maintained but was vulnerable to

mass

attack,

especially

by

escalade,

the

ground

being

practically

flat.

In

535

additional

towers56

were crowded

against

the

curtains,

so that untrained inhabitants could share in defence

by

discharging

missiles from

three directions

towards

the foot of the wall

(yet,

some

eighty

years

later,

the

Slavs

and Avars

captured

Salona and

destroyed it).

The new towers were

rectangular,

like the

earlier

ones,

but

prolonged

outwards

by

solid

triangular

beaks,

which are

structurally

distinct

entities so that

their

weight

did not affect

the

stability

of the towers. These

beaks seem

to have

been

only high

enough

to

intercept

blows

from a

ram.

A

single

beak starts forward

off

the

whole

frontage

of

narrow

towers,

while

a

pair

covers the whole

frontage

of broader

towers. No

excrescences

of

this

kind

are

visible

at

any

other site.

The

old citadel at

Pantalia/Kustendil,

in

south-west

Bulgaria,

seems

to

have been almost

entirely

rebuilt for

Justinian,57

with

layers

of brick

interposed among

the stone. It

endured

to the fifteenth century, without demonstrable alterations. Round towers (of 64o0-7-6o m

diameter) protruded

from the

four corners of

an

irregular

enclosure,

above

slopes

of

gradients

that

made intermediate towers

generally unnecessary;

however,

a

pair

of

sharp-pointed

triangular

salients,

on either

side

10-50

m

long,

sprang

westward

from the wall

(at

which

they

are

9

m

apart)

and

supplemented

inadequate

outflanking

by

the

adjacent

south corner tower.

A little

rectangular

tower

projected

beside

each

of the two

gateways,

which narrow

respectively

from

2-20

to

I14o

m

and

from

I-80

to

i-

io m.

There

were

also

two

posterns,

one of which

opened

through

the

flank

of

another

little

tower

on the

opposite

side of the

fortress.58

While

Justinian's

main

endeavour

in

the northern

Balkans was to

provide

refuges

for small

communities,

in

the south he

hoped

to

prevent

further advance of the

barbarian invaders.

He

expended

most effort on

cross-country

barriers.The

longest

of

them,

the 'Wall

ofAnastasius'

from the Marmara to the Black Sea, was

drastically

altered; doorways from towers to the

walk on

top

were

blocked,

making

it

accessible

only

upon

each curtain

separately by

new

stairs

behind.59

We know

nothing

of the wall across the

neck of the

Gallipoli peninsula;

the

54

Goodchild,

JRS 43

(I953) 75-

55

Goodchild,

JRS

41

(195I)

II fig.

3

pl.

I,

also

Corsi

di

Cultura

n.

45

above).

It is

questionable

whether

the fortified

headland

that

projects

from

the

town-site was

really

a

citadel;

it

might

antedate

both

Justinian's

town-wall and the

synagogue

which

he

converted

into

a church.

56

E.

Dyggve,

Recherches

Salona

(1928)

18

lan

B;

W.

Gerber,

Forschungen

n Salona

fig.

I--plan

of

1907.

57

Ivanov, BSoclABulg

7

(Ig19-2o0)

88

fig.

66; Bobcev,

BIABulg 24 (1961) 115

(an

article

profusely

illustrated

with

small

plans

of

fortifications

in

the

Balkans).

58

The tower

at the broader

entrance

was

5-6o

m wide

and

projected

4'50

m;

the

other,

5

m

wide,

projected

3

m. Both

could

as

easily

have been

placed

on the

opposite

side

of

the

gateways

instead

of on the

enemy's

left,

but the

actual

design

may

have been

preferred

because it would

protect

the

unshielded

right

of sortie

parties.

59 Procopius,

Aed.

v

9

6-II.








A

SKELETAL

HISTORY

OF BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

I93

latest

of its

three recorded

predecessors

had been

built as

early

as

399

B.C.

and cannot

have

left

many

usable

remnants.

IfJustinian's

barrier at

Thermopylae

has been

rightly

identified,60

it

was achieved

by

rebuilding

a

Hellenistic wall and

towers,

behind

a

proteichisma.

Procopius

says

it had

'double

battlements',

meaning

that

a

second row

of embrasures was added

above

those at the former top, which would have then been completely framed with masonry. The

latest

of

the former

projected

or

completed

barriers across

the Isthmus of

Corinth,

ascribed

by

Zosimus

(an

unreliable

author)

to the middle

of the third

century,

had become

ruinous

by Justinian's

time;61

scraps

of it

appear

to

be

incorporated

in his

wall,62

which

for the

last

300

m

before it met the eastern

shore ran

upon

a

Mycenaean predecessor.

There were

153

towers;

those

extant

are

rectangular,

of such dimensions as

4

m

projection

by

6 m

width,

and

occur

at

very

irregular

intervals

to suit the

ground.

Where the

ground

was

fairly

level

a

proteichisma,

70

cm

thick,

is found

6

m

outwards;

it

was

preceded

at

a

distance

of

3

m

by

a

ditch,

a

couple

of metres

deep.

The

garrison

for

the

eastern sectors

was

quartered

in

a

fortress63

that

extended

far inwards from

a

great

bend

in

the wall and was fortified

in

the

same

manner,

with towers

along

the

outline

some

550

m

to

the rear.

The

grandest

extant

piece

of

Justinianic

fortification is one of which

Procopius

merely

includes the bare

name,

Nicopolis,64 along

with

his

6oo-odd

others. The

previous

history

of

the

place

is

relevant.

Augustus

founded the

city

to

commemorate

the

battle

of

Actium,

giving

it a

perfunctorily

walled area

of a

square

mile

to receive

an

enormous

number of

conscripted

settlers. But

there was

no

possibility

of an

adequate

livelihood

for

so

many.

The

soil

was

poor,

the chances of

becoming

a commercial

centre for the

hinterland were restricted

by

the

distances

to and

between fertile

districts,

while the

one

outstanding

asset,

the fact that the

overseas

trade

of

Epirus necessarily passed

that

way

(just

as,

long

afterwards,

it

went

through

Preveza),

cannot have

yielded

much of

a

revenue.

Decline

was inevitable.

An

appeal

to

Julian

alleges

that

Nicopolis

had almost

wholly

'fallen

into

lamentable

decay,

the

public buildings

were

roofless, water supplies had broken, dust and rubbish lay everywhere'. Conditions are likely

to have

worsened till

nearly

two centuries

later,

when the

barbarian

invasions

of the Balkans

conferred

strategic

importance upon

Epirus

as a

southward

route for

them

and

upon Nicopolis

because

Byzantine

communications

by

sea with

Epirus

could not be

kept open

unless the

neighbourhood

of its

port

were

safeguarded. Justinian

therefore

fortified

the north-east

quarter

of

the

Augustan

city,

separating

it

from

the

derelict remainder

by

building

a

new wall on the

west and

south,

while on the other two

sides he reconstructed

the

original

wall.65 The

fortress,

though

conventionally

termed

'the

citadel',

presumably

contained

the

whole town of

his

time

as

well as

space

for

troops.

The

ground

both

in

and around

the

fortress is

practically

flat,

except

on the

east where

it

descends

gently

from

the

wall. The

design may

not have

provided

outworks

but

in

other

respects greatly (and no doubt consciously) improved on the Theodosian at Constantinople.

Only

on

the west

side

(PLATES

I

I,

12,

I

3a)

is

the wall

preserved

to

a

fair

height

and

almost

intact

in

parts.66

It

appears

of one

build

throughout

its

straight length

of

600

m.

Two

layers

of

brick,

each

composed

of several

courses,

ran

through

curtains and

towers alike.

Each end

60

Bhquignon,

RA

4

(I934) i8;

Mackay,

AJA

67

(1963)

241,

252.

61

Zosimus

i

29;

Aed. v

I

27.

62

Broneer,

Antiquity

2

(1958)

80

fig.

i.

63

Illustrated

reports

on

American excavations

n

the fortress

become more

informative

after

I967.Jenkins

and

Megaw,

BSA

32

(1931-2)

68

pl.

26.

64

RE xvii.i

(1936) s.v. cols.

513-14--plan;

cf.

sketch-plans

by

W.

J.

Leake,

Travels

n

Northern

Greece

(1835) 187

and

Chris.

Wordsworth,

Greece

1839) 230.

65

The Roman

wall on the north

seems

to have

been

rebuilt

to match the

new

west side. The

irregular

Roman wall on the

east

may

have been left almost

unaltered;

outworks

would

have

been

advisable,

it

being mainly

without

towers,

but

none

has

been

noticed.

66

EA

1961

44;

Courtauld.








194

A. W. LAWRENCE

was covered

by

a

round

corner

tower,

rectangular

towers

project

intermediately

at

intervals

of about

33

m,

and

a

horseshoe-shaped

pair

outflanks the main entrance.

An

unusually

well-preserved

ntermediate tower

is

7.15

m

wide

and

projects

6-5

m;

a

tall slit

opens through

the front and each

flank on

the

upper

storey.

The

curtains

now stand

as

high

as

the intermediate

towers, but the walk they bear passed through the horseshoe towers on which the parapet

was attached

midway

between the stone

crazy

paving

of

the walk and the

roof.

Each

horseshoe

tower contained

a

room

4

m

wide with

a maximum

length

of

nearly

5

m,

enclosed

by masonry

2-65

m

thick. An arched embrasure

in the

northern-the

southern

is

ruined-opens

straight

through

the centre of

a

presumed

mezzanine

centre of the lower

storey,

between

two that

slant

through

the

cheeks,

and

there are other embrasures

on the

upper

storey, diversely placed

so

as not to weaken

the

structure.

All

the

embrasures

are

splayed

at

so

mild an

angle

that

their extreme

contraction,

2

m

outwards,

leaves room for

a man to stand behind a

frame,

65

cm

thick,

that reduced the mouth to

a slit

(at any

rate on the

lower

storey).

A

brick arch

on

masonry

jambs

led to the main entrance of

the

fortress,

a

space

3-5

m

wide

and

4

m

deep,

covered

by

a vault

of

which

only

the

edges

remain.

A

portcullis

travelled

in

grooves 15

cm wide and

deep;

the winch was

operated

on the lost floor of a vaulted room

above.

The wall-walk

passed

through

that

room,

which was accessible

by

an arch

in

the

flank

of the southern

tower,

and

by

an

extant tunnel

through

the entire back

of the northern

tower,

lit

by

windows

on

the inward side

(PLATE

I2b).

Where the walk

emerges

from

the

tower,

the

top

of

the curtain is

broadened

towards

the

rear

by

a

landing

at the head of

a

staircase,

1-2

m

wide,

which

rests

upon

arches of

graduated

height.

A

narrower double

stair,

now

dilapidated,

rose

in

the same manner

(PLATE

3a)

upon

two

blind and

two

open

arches;

the

tallest,

in the

centre,

both

supported

a

landing

at

the

stairhead

and

gave

access underneath

to

the

doorway

of a tower that has fallen.

The lower arch ends

externally against

a

postern

close

to

the attachment of

the

tower

flank;

half of

the broken

lintel is

preserved,

below

the

fill

of

a relieving arch.

Probably Justinian

did

not

wall

villages

far

away

from the frontier zone.

The little

fort at

Plataea-a

place

he refortified

according

to

Procopius-might

have been

a

refuge

for local

peasants,

but

since

they

could

escape

invaders

by retiring

to Mount

Cithaeron

with their

animals,

a

more

likely

purpose

was to enable

a detachment

of soldiers

to remain

in

safety,

watching

and

reporting

enemy

movements

in

the low

undulating

country

overlooked

from

that

position

on

the north

edge

of

a

plateau.

Defensibility

against

manual

weapons

was

assured

by

the

rectangular

towers

that

project

in

every

direction,

but the structure

is

abysmal.67

The

fort was

erected,

rather than

built,

by superimposing

blocks

taken from

the

city

wall

of

Alexander's

time;

most of these are

rectangular,

but some

had

originally

been

keyed

together

by fitting

a

protrusion

on one into

a

rebated

corner of

another,

and the

Byzantines

did

not

reinstate them in the same order. (On PLATEI3b, a photograph of the exterior of a tower,

daylight

shows

beneath

two

blocks,

each

rebated

at a

corner.)

Haste

alone would excuse

such

casual

treatment,

and

a

barbarian

thrust

towards

Corinth

was

presumably

the

emergency

that

impelled

it.

In

Justinian's

reign,

defences far

behind the

Balkan frontier

were

needed

against

enemies

of

immense numerical

superiority

but

incapable

of

maintaining

a

protracted

siege; any

barbarian horde

that had

penetrated deeply

into

Byzantine

territory

must have relied

on

foraging

for

subsistence,

and so was bound to move

from each

district in turn when

no

more

supplies

could be

found there. The

emperor's expenditure

on barrier-walls

is

comprehensible

67 Washington, AJA'

6

(1890) pl.

33;

Courtauld

A63/3590o.








196

A. W.

LAWRENCE

who

had been trained to

arms

in

the

habitual

fighting

between

rival factions at the

chariot-races. The

garrison

of

6,ooo

men

rode to the

main

gate74

and

forced

a

way through,

trampling

over the

crowd,

composed mainly

of women and

children,

who were

rightly

even

more

anxious to

escape

the

impending

horrors.

These

soldiers

would,

as

usual,

have

been

mercenaries recruited from barbarous peoples, owing no loyalty to the Empire; if taken

prisoner,

or

if

their

pay

were

in

arrears,

they

were

always ready

to

join

the Persian

army

instead.

Their morale

was,

no

doubt,

at its

highest

when

they

were

behind

uncommonly strong

fortifications,

and

perhaps

that

was one of the

motives

that

impelled

the

building

of

some

that were of

gratuitously

ostentatious

excellence;

of these

Nicopolis

is

an

example,

and

Antioch

became another

shortly

after

Chosroes

retired to his own

realm,

when

he had

burnt

as

much

of the

city

as

he could and

depopulated

it.

Although

Chosroes eft the

wall

intact,

the Antioch

revived

by Justinian

was

newly

fortified,

not

merely

at

the weak

point

where the

Persians had entered

but,

it would

seem,

around

much

or

possibly

all

of the

immensely long

perimeter,

of which

very

little is

preserved.

Natural

causes and

robbery

of stone

long ago

reduced

it

to

fragments

on

the

mountain,

but a forest

of towers stood in the flat

valley

below till an

earthquake

in

1872

destroyed

the town, which

was rebuilt with

their

material.

The one

spectacular

remnant

of

the whole

enceinte

is now

called,

in

both

Arabic and

Turkish,

the 'Iron

Gate';

it was built

across the

deep

ravine

cut

by

a seasonal

torrent

(FIG. o).75

Seen from

without,

only

two rather

narrow windows

interrupt

masonry

that

stands like

a sheer

cliff

over the arch

through

which

the stream can

flow,

where

an

iron

grille

must have been

fixed

in

accordance with old

Greek

usage;

probably

that was

the

'gate'

which

gave

rise to

the

modern name.

At

the

back,

the

thickness of the

masonry

is

reduced to form

a

ledge

that

carries the

wall-walk,

beside

the two

windows,

which command

a

view downstream. The stark

boldness of the

concept

is

in

keeping

with

Justinian's

taste

(e.g.

as

manifested

in

Ayia Sophia),

and the

great

height

is

consistent

with

his

habit

of

raising

unsatisfactorily ow fortifications.

Some lost towers

on a

very

important

sector

of Antioch

were

exceptionally

tall;

they

stood

on a natural terrace where

the

wall

turned to climb the mountain.

The

engraving

of a

drawing

by Cassas76

s the sole

authority

for the fortifications

along

the

outward

edge,

where twin

towers rose

two or three

storeys

above

an

intervening

curtain

that

was

intact

up

to

a

cornice

which must

have extended

the

wall-walk.

Two other

towers,77

nwards towards the

ascent,

are illustrated on

the same view

and

(with trifling discrepancies)

on

one

by

Bartlett,

published

in

1838.

From

their

appearance,

none

of these towers

can

have

been

appreciably

earlier

than

Justinian,

who was the

last

emperor

to build

on

a

grand

scale

at

Antioch,

and

beyond

reasonable doubt

they

can be

ascribed

to

him,

particularly

on

comparison

with

Terracina.

The

ascent itself is the one

lost

sector of

Antioch for

which

there

exist

fully

intelligible

data.

It appears in the background

(FIG.

I I)

of

both the illustrations, looking straight upwards,

also

in a

distant

lateral

view,

again

by

Bartlett,78

rom the

Orontes

bridgehead;

a

description

by

Col. F. R.

Chesney

was written

before

I868.79

He

estimated

the

height

of the curtains as

50

to

60o

eet,

and the width

of

the walk

upon

the cornice

as

8 or

Io

feet. The towers contained

74 Probably Justinian

did

not

appreciably

alter this

entrance,

to

judge

from

the

engravings

of

views from both

back

and front

by

L. F.

Cassas,

Voyage

ittoresque

e

la

Syrie...

(1797-9)

xi

I,

xiii

I.

The inner

portion

resembled Theodosian

entrances to

Constantinople except

for

a

greater

thickness

of

the

flanking

towers and an inward

prolongation

of

the

passage

by

means of

spurs.

A

low

outwork

seems to

have been

a

proteichisma,

doubled to contain two

successive

archways.

75

Over-romanticized

in

the sketch

by

W. H. Bartlett

engraved

for Fisher's

Views

J.

Carne,

Syria,

The

Holy

Land,

Asia

Minor,

etc. i

(1836) 63).

76

Cassas,

op.

cit.

i

7,

xiii

2.

77

Carne,

op.

cit.

iii

(1838)

11.

7s

Ibid.

i

(1836)24.

79

I

know of

Chesney's

account

only

from

quotations

by

some Victorian author.








A


197

FIG. 10.

Antioch. 'Iron

Gate'

(after

Bartlett)

three storeys resting on brick arches, and a small cistern in the base; an internal staircase,

mentioned

by Chesney,

must

have continued to

the 'stone

platform'

of the

roof,

where its

exits

presumably

were covered

by

the

little excrescences

represented by

both

draughtsmen.

They

have made

plain

that

most,

if

not

all

the

towers,

resembled

in

style

those on the

terrace,

and

Chesney

confirms the

uniformity

of

construction,

'about

30

feet

square', projecting

both

forward

and backward 'so as to

defend the interior side as well as

the exterior face of the

wall';

low doors to the walk

along

the curtains had the

effect that it

could be

regarded

as

connecting

'a

chain of small

castles'. The

gradient

was so

steep

that the walk

composed

'a

succession of

steps

between the

towers,

which are

very

near each

other,

and have a

storey

rising

above the

wall,

to

protect

the

intervening

portions

from the

commanding ground

outside'.

Chesney

would,

of

course,

have been able to

verify

that

the wall-walk

and tower

platforms

could not be

overlooked from anywhere on the upper part of the slope, and presumably the designer had

also taken care that

they

should be out of reach of

missiles

coming

at

a

low

trajectory.

Barely

half

the

perimeter

of

Dara,80

which was

almost

3

km

long,

remains

in

fairly intelligible

though

ruinous

condition;

it

included

the crests of

three

hills,

and the whole site is

intersected

by

a

small

river,

which

periodically

overflowed

through

arches that

were

gridded

for

security

(in

accordance with

ancient Greek

practice).

The

double enceinte of Anastasius

I

was rebuilt

stronger by Justinian,

improved by

his

successor,

and

presumably repaired

or restored

later,

when the

city

was twice

captured

by

the

Persians but

recovered

by

the

Byzantines.

The basic

80

Procopius,

Bell. ii

13 17-18;

Aed.

ii

I

14-25;

Crow,

rayla 4

(1981)

12

figs.

2-12.








198

A. W. LAWRENCE

FIG.

I

I.

Antioch. Detail

of

engraving (Cassas)








A

SKELETAL

HISTORY


199

scheme

(which

was,

no

doubt,

subject

to

modification

to suit differences of

terrain)

must

be

due

to

Justinian;

it

provided

huge apsidal

towers,

some at least

with windows in a

circular

lower

storey

which

is

sturdily

domed at

curtain

level,

while at intervals of not more

than

20

m

were

interposed rectangular

turrets,

vaulted

at

roughly

the same level. We know

from

Procopius that Justinian's endeavour to prevent the inner wall being overlooked from

elephants,

and even

from

siege-mounds,

resulted

in

still

greater

height

than at

Antioch-

00oo

eet

in

towers and

60o

feet

in

curtains,

which

he

backed with a

roofed

'stoa',

no

longer

visible

(cf.

a

feature at

Sergiopolis,

described

below).

There were defensive

positions

at

three

levels

in

towers

and

two

in

curtains,

where the old

battlements had been

reduced

to

slits

beneath

30

feet

of

added

masonry,

which seems to have

been no thicker than a

parapet.

Justinian

also thickened

and

raised the outer

wall,

making

it a

really

serious obstacle to

the

advance of

siege-engines,

although

only

a

breastwork;

its

height

seems to

have been

about

3

m

to

the

walk. The

space

between the two

walls was not less than

50

feet

wide;

the

townspeople

put

their cattle

and other

animals

there whenever

a

Sassanian

force

obtruded. Where

feasible,

Justinian

added

a

third line

of

defence

by

cutting

a

ditch with vertical

sides

in

hard

rock,

so

far in advance of the outer wall that a

proteichisma

must have existed to

overlook it.

The

height

at

Dara

seems

to have been

altogether exceptional.

Procopius

writes as

though

the

dimensions

he records

for

Martyriopolis,s8

another

city

on the

Sassanian

frontier,

were

startling

enough; Justinian

there

increased the

thickness of the wall

from

4

to

12

feet and

the

height

from

20 to

40

feet.

Sergiopolis/Resafa,

the

capital

of an

Arab

principality subject

to

Justinian,

had

been

surrounded

by

a wall

proof

against

Beduin

only;

he

replaced

it

by

one82

calculated

to resist

the full

might

and

offensive

skill of

the

Sassanian

empire,

with a

surrounding

bank

and

ditch

(which

at

the

downward

end holds

rain)

to

impede

access,

except

by

causeways

to the

gates.

An

oblong

expanse

of

sloping

ground

was

enclosed within

four

straight

sides,

all

of which

differ in length; they total some I-9 km. The curtains were 0o-II-50 m high to the open walk.

In

the

lower half

they

are

solid,

about

3

m

thick; above,

they

were

divided into

three

approximately

equal

sections.

A

ponderous

arcade

runs

along

the

inward

face,

giving

light

to a

vaulted

corridor,

and

then,

in

most

parts,

there

follows the

masonry

of

the

frontage,

interrupted by

a slit

opposite

the centre

of each arch.

But,

midway

between

every

two

towers,

a

piece

of

frontage,

5

m

long,

projects

3

m

and

supports

an

outward

expansion

of

the

corridor,

which

thus

suddenly

becomes

5

m

wide

within the

enclosing

masonry,

though only

for

a

distance

equal

to

the

span

of

the arch

behind,

3-20

m.

These little

salients

appear

to

have

been

no taller than

the

curtains

in

general:

the

roofing

carried the

wall-walk,

and the

frontage

presumably

ended

by

forming

protrusions

of its

crenellated

parapet.

The

purpose

can

be

deduced

from

the fact that

a

slit

existed

in

each flank

as

well as

in

front;

defenders

of

the

corridor were thereby able to send missiles

along

the face of the wall without

incurring

serious

risk

to

themselves,

and

there

must

have

been

embrasures

in

corresponding

positions

above.

The

layout

of the

towers

at

Sergiopolis

took

account

of

the

corridor,

not

vice

versa. At

each

corner

stands

a

completely

circular

tower,

formerly

of

I2-I2.40

m

external

diameter,

with

its

wall

2-40-2-50

m

thick;

the

curtains

are

joined

to

it,

and

between

them

runs

a

passage

at

ground

level,

another from

the

corridor

to the floor

above,

and a

simple

doorway

from the

open

wall-walk

to the

third

storey.

Slits in

the lowest room

served

merely

for

light

and

ventilation;

those in

the

upper storeys

were

accessible

through deep

vaulted

embrasures.

Intermediate towers

are

disposed

somewhat

irregularly,

often

only

about

50

m

apart

and

81

Aed.

ii

2.

82

Ibid. ii

9

3-9;

W.

Karnapp,

Die

Stadtmauer

on

Resafa

n

Syrien

1976).








200

A. W. LAWRENCE

never as much as

ioo

m.

Most of them

are

rectangular,

of

9-Io

m

a

side;

three

are similar

in

every

respect

but for

a

beak,

which

makes

them

pentagonal.

The

arrangements

of

storeys

and slits are

practically

the

same

as

in

the corner towers. Short

spans

were covered

by

vaults,

but

larger by

wooden

flooring,

set on corbels. The corridor

passes

behind

some

towers,

others

are backed by double staircases of converging flights, resting on arches.

There is a main entrance to

Sergiopolis

on

each

of its four sides. The arched

gateway

was

put

at the

centre of

a curtain that links two

rectangular

towers.

Except

on

the

west

side,

which

opens

on to the

Syrian

Desert,

each

gate

was

approached

through

a

court bounded

externally

by

a wall almost

as thick as the

curtain;

this

is

aligned

with the

outward

faces of

the towers

at the east and south entrances but

at

the

northern turns back to

join

the

corners

of the towers. Details of the scheme

vary

at

every

entrance,

and there is

a

major

difference

at both the

southern

and the northern

in

that their courts are

broader

(I9-2o

and

21

m

instead

of about

14

m)

because the towers

are

narrower;

they

project

to the

customary

II

m.

Presumably

these

discrepancies

were

enforced

by

the needs

of traffic.

Zenobia,

a small

town of

Palmyrene origin

on

the

Euphrates,

lay

abandoned

inside

a

ruined

wall until

Justinian

revived it as a

garrisoned

fortress.83

He widened the area that had been

enclosed,

and

extended it

up

a

hill

that had overlooked

it,

where he

built

a

fortlet on

the

summit and

scarped

the

slopes

to

make it difficult of access from outside.

On

sectors overlooked

from

cliffs he added structures

called

'wings'

(ptera)

which 'looked as

though

they hung

off

the

wall';

they

cannot

have

resembled

the

improvised

overhang

that

collapsed

at Antioch

earlier

in

the

reign,

and should

perhaps

be visualized as continuous covered

balconies.

They

were

the more needed because solid

masonry

rose to their

level,

uninterrupted

even

by

slits.

The

towers

appear

to

have

all

been

rectangular;

whether

they

differed much

in

size has not

been ascertained.

7.

TRUNCATION OF

THE

EMPIRE,

LATE

SIXTH AND

EARLY SEVENTH

CENTURIES

The immediate successors of

Justinian

(who

had exhausted

the

treasury)

built

very

little.

In

the

Balkans

they

seem

to have made

repairs

at

a

few fortifications

and to

have

blocked

(at

least

partially)

some

gateways,84

while

the frontier still held. After

the barbarians

poured

in,

the loss of

territory

became so

rapid

that there would not have been

time to construct

new

defences,

nor,

in

general,

could

any

benefit have resulted.

In

Italy,

however,

there was

a

fair

chance

of

stopping

the

advance of

the Lombards

by

placing

forts

at

strategic

points,

and the discontinuous ruins of one have

probably

been discovered

at

Filattiera.85

No

innovations are visible

in Africa

after

Justinian's

reign. Nothing

is known of

any attempt

to

build

obstacles

to

Arab

conquest

in

Syria,

Egypt,

North

Africa,

or

Spain.

8.

SMALL-SCALE WORK AGAINST THE ARABS, MID SEVENTH-EARLY EIGHTH

CENTURIES

A

new,

and

extremely

serious,

menace

arose

upon

the Arab creation of

a

fleet to

convey

expeditionary

forces. Its first recorded

exploit,

in

or

shortly

before

649,

was the

capture

and

sack

of

Salamis/Constantia,86

the

capital

of

Cyprus;

the Arabs

thereby

obtained

some

83

Aed.

i

8

8-25;

Karnapp,

op.

cit.

27 figs.

Ioo-9;

Lauffray,

AnnArchSyrie

(1951)

41 pl. iv-plan questioned

by Karnapp's

n.

99;

A.

Poidebard,

La

Trace

de

Romedans le disert

de

Syrie

(1934) pls.

82-4.

84

But

T. Ivanov ascribes

to

Justinian

the

total

blocking

of

three

out

of

the

four

main entrances and

of

all

the

posterns

yet

found at

Abritus

(Abritus 239,

241,

248).

85

Bullough,

BSR

24

(1956)

14

pl.

v.

The

only

distinct

feature

is a

tower,

less

than

4

m

square

but

16

m

high,

set

back

from a tall concrete

base above

which it

is faced with

stone;

the

courses alternate

between

half and full

height

as was

customary

in north Africa.

86

Geo.

F.

Hill,

History

of

Cyprus

i

(1940)

284, 285,

326-9;

Antiquities

Dept.

Salamis

1966)

5.








A SKELETAL

HISTORY OF

BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION

201

measure

of control over

the whole

island,

which

they

compelled

to

pay

tribute. The

fleet

returned

in

653/4

to crush a

revolt,

and

again

captured

Salamis,

which this time

was

more

thoroughly destroyed,

and

the

killing

of

inhabitants

allegedly proceeded during

forty days.

An

unimpressive

fortification,

limited to the central

part

of the ancient

city,

had been

built

hastily, probably in readiness for this second attack-the earlier may have been unexpected.

The

wall,

of which

very

little is now

exposed,

consists of reused material

and

incorporates

stretches

of

buildings

that

were

already

ruined,

as had

long

been

a

regular practice, especially

characteristic

ofJustinian's

officers

in

Africa.

Even the first

capture

of Salamis

appears

to have been

accompanied

by

horrors. The news

must

immediately

have

caused

profound apprehension

along

the

opposite

coast of Asia

Minor,

but

apparently

the

defences there that had

repelled

the Isaurians were believed to be

still

adequate, except

at

Side. That

city

had

been

prosperous

on account of its

shipping,

which

must have

dwindled

owing

to the Moslem

conquests

of so

many Byzantine

provinces,

leaving

it no

special

asset

apart

from a

reduced trade

in

timber from its hinterland

(where

travellers

of the nineteenth

century

rode for hours

through

oak

forest).

A

shrunken

population

could

not man all the

long perimeter

of the old

enceinte; however,

it included a low

promontory,

suitable for a

very

capacious

refuge

(or

perhaps

to contain the whole

town)

if

converted into

an inner

fortress,

and this

was

effected

simply

by building

a

cross-wall on the

neck,

where

a

gap

of

some

330

m

had

intervened between

the

Hellenistic

defences

along

the

open

sea and

beside the harbour. The

cross-wall8'

was about

20

m

longer

because it

took

a

tortuous course

(PLATE

I4a)

incorporating

Roman structural

remains,

one of which is

an

arch that was

narrowed

to become the main

gateway.88

(An

inscription

of the third or fourth

century,

reused

as

building

material,89

has

mistakenly

been

thought

to date the

wall;

it names

a

comes,

Philippus

Attius.)

Midway

between

the two

shores,

the

stage

of the theatre was

replaced

by

a thin

barrier;

the auditorium

rises

9

m

to

the

highest

bench and so would have

provided

dominating

positions on both sides of the orchestra. The rest of the cross-wall was tall and sturdy. In the

piece

towards the

open

sea are two

almost

square

towers,

with facets of over 8

m

which differ

in

being

equipped

either

with slits alone or both slits and windows on one or two of their

three

storeys

still

preserved

to

heights

of

12-15

m.

The Arab fleet soon

undertook annual

expeditions

to

greater

distances. Rhodes was

plundered

in

653,

and

twenty years

later received

an

Arab

settlement,

which is

said

to

have

endured seven

years;90

presumably

it formed an

advanced

base

for

the

attempts

to

capture

Constantinople

in

674

and

678.

Though

the fleet was

used

primarily,

as

on such

occasions,

to

promote

grand strategy,

opportunities

to loot

places

of no

political consequence

would

scarcely

have been

neglected.

Since

all

shipping

between

Syria

and

Rhodes

naturally

kept

inshore while

passing

Lycia,

into which the Isaurians had been unable to

penetrate

because

of the mountainous interior, the earliest Byzantine fortifications on or near that coast should

have

originated

during

the

third

quarter

of the

century. Although

no ruin is

datable from

archaeological

or

(so

far

as I

know)

literary

evidence,

we

may unhesitantly

assume that the

first

precautions

included the

provision

of

strong

refuges,

each

by

the

speedy

method of

renovating

an

ancient

acropolis.

One is at

Telmessus/Fethiye,

the nearest

port

to

Rhodes,

at

the

head

of a

deep

inlet;

another,

at

Myra,

then a rich

city,

rises from the

plain

an hour's

87

A. M.

Mansel,

Die

Ruinen onSide

0,

figs.

12,

24-5, plan

in

pocket;

Courtauld;

P.

Knoblauch,

Die

Hafenanlagen

nddie

anschlieflenden

eemauernonSide

(Ankara

1977)

-not

seen.

88

The

junction

with

the harbour

wall is

thickened

into

forming

a

miniature

tower,

as

though

it had

flanked a lost

gateway.

The

corresponding junction

towards the

open

sea

has

fallen.

89

Foss,

Zeitschriftar

Papyrologie

nd

Epigraphik

6

(1977)

172.

90

Brook,

JHS

18

(1898)

187.








A SKELETAL HISTORY

OF

BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

203

constantly

made

abrupt

turns but

only

three

or four towers

are

known to have

existed,

and

few data were recorded

by

excavators intent on

revealing

the Roman

monuments.

This

wall

ceased to be used

following

one or other of

the Arab

incursions.

Instead,

the

surviving

population

abandoned

the ancient

city

and settled outside

it,

on the

hill

now called

Ayasuluk,

the summit of which was ringed for the purpose with a strong fortification; one older feature

was

preserved,

the ornate 'Gate

of

the

Persecution'"99

hat

had formed the entrance to the

precinct

of the

Church of St.

John.

The defences

would,

in

any

case,

be

incomplete

owing

to the construction

of the Turkish

citadel;

their

remains100

are in

bad

condition,

and

may

not all be

contemporaneous.

Recent

excavations

on

an

eastern sector are said to

have

dated

it to the

eighth

century,

which should mean that

it was built

before

740,

when

Leo

III

broke

the

military

power

of the Arabs.

Here stood four

rectangular

towers and

three

triangular

salients,

which were

filled

solid.

Along

the south

end are

visible three

rectangular

towers

(actually oblong

beside the

frontage

of the

wall)

between one that is half-oval and

a

short

(probably

solid) triangle.

Probably

at the

same

time,

the twin towers

flanking

the

'Gate

of

the Persecution' were

made fit for

war

by

adding

beaks to the

square

ends.

A town wall at

Pergamon101

was

inadequately

recorded before its demolition

by

excavators,

who

attributed

it

to

Leo

III

(717-41).

The course

seems

to

have

followed contours

as

closely

as

possible,

with

flanking only

at

a

few

abrupt

turns,

apart

from a

pair

of

very

small

towers

beside

a

gateway;

one somewhat

larger

tower

overlapped

a

corner.

In

or about

718

the Arabs

lost

practically

the

whole of their

invasion

fleet,

during

and

on its return from

their last

siege

of

Constantinople,

and

they

never

regained

command of

the seas.

Subsequent

effort from

Syrian

or

Egyptian ports

was

limited

to small-scale

forays

or mere

piracy.

An

effective

Byzantine

countermeasure could have been

to

garrison

a

reconditioned

acropolis

or

a

new fort built for the

purpose.

In

727

Leo

III

and

his

son

(afterwards

Constantine

V)

renovated some

towers

at

Nicaea,

facing them with ashlar instead of the previous alternate bands of stone and brick. The change

of material conferred

only

a

slight

practical

benefit,

and

perhaps

a

stronger

motive was to

emphasize

the

military reliability

of

the Isaurian

dynasty,

as

an

antidote to the

frenzy

aroused

by

Constantine's

iconoclasm.

Certainly

Michael

III

felt no shame

over

reverting

to the

traditional method of

facing,

130 years

later,

for he

put

inscriptions

on

other towers to

commemorate his restoration of

them. Neither

Leo's

programme

nor

his affected

the

basic

design,

which

had

been modified

only

in

minor

respects

since the third

century,

chiefly

while

repairing

damage

caused

by

an

earthquake

in

368;

an

additional

tower

had

at

some date

been

inserted

midway

between

every

two

along

the

curtains,

but

precisely

resembled

them.

Even as late as

1204

the curtains did not

exceed

their

original height

(modest by Justinianic

standards),

and

the towers still

terminated

with

a low

room entered from

the

wall-walk;

replacements for lost merlons were backed, like their predecessors, by a short traverse102(when

measurable,

projecting

70

cm inwards and

85

cm

wide).

The

retention of

a

scheme

so

antiquated

is

not

really

comprehensible

unless

the wet ditch

that

confronted

assailants

in

Io97

had

already

existed

for several centuries.

An

example

of local

enterprise

far inland

(in

the

vicinity

of

Iconium/Konya)

was

pathetically

crude;

it

was

probably

undertaken soon

after

the Arabs

destroyed

the

nearby

town,

about

7oo,

and is known

by

the name of that

site,

Defile.103

It was an

attempt

to

make a

small

99

So

called

because

of

mistaking

the

subject

of

an

earlier

relief built into

the arch.

100

Miiller-Wiener,

IstMitt

11

(1961) 97,

102

fig.

23

Beil.

iii ii

101

Altertismer

von

Pergamon

i

2

305

pl. iii

Beib.

62.

I

-2.

102

W.

Karnapp

and A. M.

Schneider,

Die

Stadtmaueron

Iznik

(1938)

12,

I6

fig. 5-

103W. M.

Ramsay

and G. L. Bell, The Thousand nd One

Churches

(1909)

152,

542, 545 fig- I17-









205

(although

at

least two

are

reconstructions)

remains on the

west

side

(PLATE

I7a),

which

is

straight

behind for its

whole

length

of over

300

m,

and

there

would have been another

straight

row of

six

instead of the

extant

four

(FIG.

I2)

along

the

south

end

but

for the

interposed

projection

of the

barbican,

on which there is

space

only

for two

smaller towers. The towers

of full siz.evary between 6 and 8 m in width, and are placed at extraordinarilyshortintervals,

usually

of

8-12

m,

at

most

of

14

m.

The whole

of each

tower stands

forward from

a

continuous

wall.

The

lower

part,

accounting

for more than

half

the

height,

is

solid

and consists of

rubble,

strongly

bound

with lime mortar and brick

dust,

behind

a

facing

of

great

blocks;

in

the

upper

part,

bands

of small

stones,

often laid

in

three

courses,

alternate

with brickwork of similar

height.

A

low vault

covers

a

little

room,

more or less level with

the

top

of the block

facing

but over

2

m

inwards

from it on

the

flanks and

roughly 3

m inwards from the beak. It

is

extended

by

embrasures,

large enough

for

a man

to stand

within,

which

contract

just

before

the

exterior,

where

they

are

closed

except

for a narrow

slit;

sometimes

as

many

as

two or three

slits were

provided,

with one or two on each

flank,

sometimes

there

was

only

one

on a

single

flank. Each of these rooms

was

entered

separately, by

a

passage

tunnelled

straight through

from

the inward face

of

the

wall,106

which maintains the same thickness behind

the towers as

between them.

Each vault

supported

an

upper

room,

which

is more

spacious,

covered

by

a

taller

vault,

and

surrounded

by

a

larger

number of embrasures

hat end at

windows suitable

for

catapults;

a

doorway

in

the back

opens

off a

corridor,

2

m

wide,

tunnelled

longitudinally

within the thickness of the

curtains. This was overlaid

by

an

exposed

walk,

and a flat roof

at

the

same

level covered each tower.

A

crenellated

parapet

seems

to have bordered

curtains

and towers

alike,

rising

from a

height

of

10-I2

m

above the

steep

eastern side but

14-16

m

over

gentler

slopes.

Although

the

horrid

medley

of

the

facings

would not

have

shown

through

a

coating

of

plaster

and

limewash,

the

exterior described must have been

singularly ugly,

with

constant

differencein proportions.The single basicpatternof alternate beaked tower and shortcurtain,

repeated

over and over

again

along

the

west,

south,

and east of

the

citadel

(though

apparently

not on the

north,

which was

strong by

nature),

was

exceptionally practical

because adherence

to it

was

compatible

with variation

in

the

size,

shape

and

placing

of

features,

large

or

small,

presumably

to fit the

requirements

of the

ground,

the

contours

of which have

since

changed

through

erosion

and

the

accumulation

of refuse.

Embrasures,

for

instance,

are

variously

sited

for

no reason that

is now

intelligible.

In

general,

however,

the

dense

massing

of towers

in

alignment

must have

allowed

an

abnormal

concentration of cross-fire

against

any

distant

target

from

catapults

mounted on each

beak

and

outward

portion

of a

flank;

perhaps,

too,

the

length

and

angles

of each

beak were

specifically

ordained

so

that

oblique

fire

from the

flank of the next

tower

would

pass

clear of it

towards some

lateral

area that

offered

vantageto the

enemy.

The

exceptionally

narrow

space

between almost

every

couple

of

towers

was,

of

course,

dead

ground

to all

catapults,

but

abnormally

subject

to manual

weapons, particularly

stones,

thrown

from both

sides and from the

curtain.

These

advantages

were

obtained

at

an

inordinate cost of

construction;

that

may

in

part

explain why

no other

fort

except Pagnik

Oreni

is

known to

have been so

amply

equipped

with

towers. But

greater

importance

should

be attached to the

probability

that

only

a

very

small number of

forts

would

ever hold

enough

defenders

to

man

such a

wilfully

lengthened

perimeter;

Ankara,

on the other

hand,

was

certainly

pre-eminent

for

strategic

value.

The barbican

(FIG.

I12)

at

the middle of the south

end has

been

accepted

without demur

106

Whenever

these

passages opened

high

above

ground

they

must

have

been

reached

by

wooden

steps

or

a fixed

ladder. One of

the few still intact and

accessible

s

85

cm

wide,

and

5'35

m

long

to

the

inner

face

of

the thick vault.








206 A. W. LAWRENCE

O 10

20

30

40m

0

5

10m

I

I

I

MAISON

TURQUE

FIG. 12. Ankara.

Plan of

refronted

polygon,

barbican,

and entrance

(Jerphanion)








A

SKELETAL

HISTORY


207

as

an

addition of

the

ninth

century,

merely

because

one

of two

inscriptions

of an

Emperor

Michael

claims

credit

for

it;

the

other does

the like

for the south-west corner

tower,

which

he

can have

done no

more

than

repair

or

partially

reconstruct. That his work

on the

barbican

was

similarly

limited

may

be assumed

in

view

of the

precise

resemblance

in

technique

and

in

shape of towers to definitely original portions of the citadel. There is no other Byzantine

example

of

such a

barbican. It

is

a

representative

of

a

very

ancient oriental

typeo07

which

persisted

in

Asia

for

several

millennia;

the

width

is

always

greater

than

the

depth,

so

as

to

afford

space

for

traffic

to

turn at

right angles

between

two

gateways,

of

which the outer

was

entered

laterally.

The

barbican

at

Ankara was not

as tall

as

the

old wall

behind,s08

from

which defenders

could

shoot over

it;

their missiles

would

inevitably

have

fallen well

past

its

foot,

supplementing

closer

fire

off

the

barbican

itself

and

its

two

little

beaked towers.

The

jambs

of the

outer

gateway,

in

the

east

flank,

are

grooved (PLATE

8b)

for a

portcullis,

which

could be

raised

into

the

gap

between two lintel

blocks made from

column

shafts;

this

immediately

preceded

a

wider

two-leaved

gate

covered

by

a

vault. Then

followed a

court,

spacious enough

for a cart

to turn at

right

angles

into a vaulted

passage through

masonry

5'25

m

thick,

which ended at another two-leaved

gate.

The barbican thus

gave

far

greater

protection

than

if

it

had

been

of

the

regular Byzantine

type,

which

would

have

put

the

entrance

in the

outward

face;

the

actual

gateway

was so

overlooked

from

three directions that

attack with

manual

weapons

or with

a

ram

would

have

been

extremely

hazardous,

while the

enemy

had

scarcely any

chance

of

bringing

a

catapult

to

bear,

even with

oblique

aim.

The

whole area lies

within

the

outer

ward,

whatever their

relative dates

may

be.

No

other

Byzantine

structure

is

in

any way

comparable

with

that at

the

south-east

corner,

where

a

knob of

rock

rose

above

all

its

surroundings

and

was

completely

enveloped

by slightly

taller

masonry,

rather

in

the manner

of the

shell-keeps

built

in

France

and

England shortly

before and

after

I200.

The

shape

is

unparalleled

(FIG.

12;

PLATES

6b,

I7a).

An

irregular

polygon, of seven external facets and two more forming the back, encloses a roughly oval

space

of some

15

X

20

m

which was

never roofed

(and

if

it

contained

any

buildings, they

have

left no

trace).

The

chief or

even sole

purpose

of

the

back

may

have been

to

buttress the

front,

acting

as a

horizontal

arch

from the

ground

upwards.

The front

was

thicker,

exceeding

5

m

at

the

ruinous

top,

which

was

treated in

continuation of

the

adjoining

curtains. The crenellated

parapet

has

left

recognizable

tatters;

the

exposed

walk

alongside

has

vanished

owing

to the

collapse

of

its

support,

the

vault

that

covered the

corridor,

the

outward

edge

of which is still

bordered

by

masonry

2

m

thick

containing

embrasures. There is

some

reason

to

think that

the wall

(unlike

the

curtains)

was

solid below that

level,

because

there

are

no

doorways

in

the

inward

face;

the

outward face

has been

concealed

ever

since

the ninth

century,

except

in

the most

westerly

facet.

Presumably

the rest of it

had

suffered

damage

that

could not

safely

be remedied by usual methods of

repair,

and therefore was refronted

(as

shown on the

plan

by

hatching)

with

additional

masonry,

2-50-2-80

m

thick,

up

to a

somewhat

greater

height

than

previously (but

the

new

top

no

longer exists).

Additional

masonry

was

applied

also

along

the

contiguous

beginning

of

the east

side

(PLATE

17a),

where

it

composed

a

small new tower

and a

new

exterior

to

an

old

larger

salient. On

the west

face of

the

polygon

(PLATEI6b)

the

107

For

barbicans

of

the

Assyrian

period

see

my

Greek

Aims

in

Fortification

I979)

23,

25 fig.

io.

Every

entrance

to Hatra

was

approached

through

a

comparable

barbican,

probably

before A.D.

200

(W.

Andrae,

Die

Ruinenvon

Hatra

ii

(I912)

figs. 25-7,

30-2).

Descriptions

of

the

Round

City

of

Baghdad,

which

was

completed

about

766,

indicate that some

such work

existed

outside one

or

more of its

entrances

(K.

A.

C.

Creswell,

Early

Muslim

Architecture

(1958)

162). Many

undated

instances

in

Soviet

Turkestan

are relevant

because of the

initial

unity

of

the Islamic

conquests,

and

Mogul

barbicans of the same

type

followed

the

tradition

of

that

region.

108

Jerphanion's

restoration

(his

pl. 92) misrepresents

the

height

relation

of

barbican

and main

wall.








208 A. W. LAWRENCE

addition

begins

with

a

rectangular

protrusion

against

which the wall of the outer ward was

intended

to

abut;

a

blocked

doorway,

more

than

half-way

up,

led

to

a walk

along

the lost

first

curtain

(where,

on the

photograph,

a

house

stands).

Since neither the

facing

of

the

polygon

nor the wall of the outer ward suffered

any

appreciable

damage

during

the

remainder

of the

Byzantine period, both must date'09 after the siege of 8o6, which nearly succeeded.

The

wall

enclosing

the outer ward

is

faced,

just

like the

polygon, entirely

with

reused

stone

below

a

brick

parapet.

The towers are solid to the same

height,

and

at

first

none

was

carried

up

to include

a

room above

it,

while the curtains

always

terminated with

an

exposed

walk.

These

divergencies

from the

methods

of

the

original

citadel all

made

for

quicker

and

cheaper

construction,

and resulted

in a less formidable barrier

although

the terrain

generally

was less

defensible

by

nature. The wall

climbed some

60o

m

along

a course

of

700

m

to

join

the

original

citadel. The

builders

presumably

worked southward from the

lip

of the

ravine,

but

also

ran

a

weak extension eastward

upon

it

to meet the

original

north-west corner and continued

below the

north end

in

a manner

suggestive

of

a

proteichisma

(so

far as can be seen

in

spite

of Turkish

alterations).

After

the

southward

wall

leaves the ravine

it

first

traverses more or

less flat

ground,

keeping

roughly

parallel

with the west side of the

original

citadel at an

average

distance of

slightly

over

Ioo

m. It

began

the definite ascent when it came

west of the

old south-west

corner,

and

then

swung

further outward

to the

main

gateway,

which

stands

directly

south

of

that

corner;

a series

of

gentle

bends follows

on the

way up

towards the

polygon,

but the

last remains

now

stop

45

m

short of

it,

where the

gradient

must have become

exceptionally steep.

The main

gateway,

from

which a track

climbed to the

barbican,

interrupts

a

short

piece

of wall between two

apsidal

towers,

one of which

(PLATEI7b)

has

a

diameter

of

I3-50

m

and

projects

i i

m. At

some later

date this entrance was

strengthened by

a barbican of

the habitual

Byzantine

type,

with a thin cross-wall

in

Byzantine

technique

between the

straight

flanks of

the towers, forming a court 5-6o m deep; its gateway is grooved for a portcullis. Semicircular

towers flanked

a

minor

gateway,

almost

opposite

one

through

the west side

of the

original

citadel.

Rectangular

towers,

interspersed

among

the

curtains,

usually

project

about 8

m

and

tend to be some

Io

m

wide;

they

are

spaced

nowhere less

than

twice as

far

apart

as

in

the

original

citadel,

occasionally

more than four

times,

but their

greater

width enabled

a

larger

number of

catapults

to be

mounted--eventually,

if

not

at

first.

For,

although

the

parapet

had

enclosed.only

an

open platform,

more brickwork was afterwards

imposed

to

form

a

room,

in

which

former

embrasures were

sometimes converted into windows.

New

parapets

were then

built;

one of the

merlons,

on

a

tower

flanking

a

minor

gateway,

is carved with

a

cross,

proving

that the increase

in

height

dates

from

a

time of

Byzantine

tenure.

In

the towers

flanking

the

main

gateway,

the room

was

floored well above the level of the former

parapet,

which was

blocked up, leaving the edges of merlons visible as vertical joints in the added brickwork.

The whole

design

of the

outer ward

was

traditional;

its one unusual feature

was

the

magnitude

of the

apsidal

towers

beside the

main

entrance,

and for

this there were

doubtless

more

precedents

than now

exist,

derived

from Roman

examples (such

as at

Babylon/Old

Cairo).

Even after

all

improvements,

the fortification

remained

poor compared

with the

original

citadel,

but was

by

no means

weak;

the

curtains,

though

little more than

half

as

thick

(in

fact,

about

3 m),

could

not

easily

be

breached,

while their

height

was

enough

to make

escalade

precarious.

If

properly

defended,

capture

should have entailed such

heavy

casualties

109 No valid

argument

can be based

on the fact that

the

stone

facing

of

the

entire wall came

from

buildings destroyed

in

630,

because these must

have been

500

m

distant

from the

new town and

there was

no reason to clear

away

their ruins

except

when need

arose

for

the material.








A SKELETAL HISTORY

OF

BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

209

as

might

deter the

enemy

from

proceeding upwards

against

the

original

citadel,

knowing

that

far

more serious osses would be

incurred

in

attacking

it. For

the

defenders,

the

worst

drawback

of the

outer wall was

the

inordinate

length

of

perimeter

that

might

simultaneously

be

liable

to

real

or

feint

assaults,

especially

if

catapults

had

failed to hold

the

enemy

at a

distance.

But

the population of the town is likely to have increased greatly under the protection of the

citadel,

and

probably

most

took

refuge

in

the outer

ward,

where

they

would bear the

brunt

of

engagements

at close

quarters by

throwing

stones and

using any

other manual

weapons,

in

numbers that

might

compensate

for

lack of

proficiency.

10.

ADDITIONS

AT

CONSTANTINOPLE PRIOR TO

C.

850

The Theodosian double line ends

almost

I

km

short of the

Golden

Horn,

at

a

point

where

it

must have

joined

older

defences;

these were

gradually

superseded during

the next few

centuries

by

a

succession

of

new

fortifications'10 hat

allowed

the

city

to

expand.

The earliest

of them-it

already

existed in

626-was

a broad salient

called

The Pteron

(i.e. 'Wing')

which

enclosed

a

large

part

of the

Blachernae

suburb;

its flanks

projected

at least

200

m.

Heraclius' wall above the Golden Horn was built in 626-7. It is so placed that it normally

incurred

comparatively

little

danger,

and was

given

a

simple,

conventional

design,

with

rather

small

rectangular

towers.

In

the

siege

of

1204

the towers were

raised

by

two

or

three

wooden

storeys;111

use

of this

ancient

device

could have been

anticipated by

Heraclius.

Between

813

and

820

Leo

V

added

an

outwork

in

front of the

Pteron.

Emperors

n

several

centuries

undertook renovations

which

may

have

been

general

or limited to

parts only,

but

surely

altered details of

the

scheme

and

possibly

modified

the

course. The

existing

ruin

(FIG.

13)

can

be

recognized

as a tall

proteichisma,

raised

by

vaulting

instead of solid

masonry,

and its

front

is

extraordinarily

distant

from

the Pteron wall

(well

over

20

m at

most

points).

But

Leo's

proteichisma

seems

to

have been a

feeble

obstacle.

Perhaps

it

resembled

one

in

central

Asia

Minor,

the least

imperfect

relic

of the

earliest

stage among

the

meagre

ruins

at

Seg

Kalesi,112

a

hilltop

site

conjecturally

identified with

Thebasa,

which

was

fortified

by

Nicephorus

I in

805,

captured by

the Arabs

in

8o6,

and

recaptured

by Nicephorus

in

807;

the

fact that

Leo

held

an

exalted

position

in

his

army may

be

relevant. The

proteichisma

cannot

have been much

taller than

a

man,

the

masonry

being

only

about a

metre thick. The

front is

straight along

the

50

m

preserved,

to the corner

of

an

oblique

return to

the

wall,

which

is

otherwise

Io-I

m

distant on an

upper

level. Hence the

top

would have been

overshot

by

missiles

discharged

from the wall

on

any

trajectory.

Apparently

within a

couple

of

decades after

Leo's death

in

820

the

Blachernae

proteichisma

was

thought

untenable

against

determined

assault because it

could

not

sufficiently

be

overshot;

we

do

not know whether

it

remained

entirely

his

work

till

that

time,

or

was

already

in

process

of improvement.The solutionadopted (FIG. 3) went to the extreme of building three towers1a3

to a

height

of some

26

m,

projecting

forward from the

Pteron,

so

that

catapults

on

the third

storey

could

shoot across the

whole

outwork

although

that

had

been not

only

strengthened

but

also

raised.

Each

tower

ends

bluntly

with three facets of a

hexagon

or,

in

the case of one

attached to a

bend,

of a

heptagon

in

which

part

of the back

stood free for

shooting

towards

the rear.

Spacious

embrasures lead to

slits;

there are six on as

many

exposed

facets of the

heptagon,

five on those of

the

intermediate

hexagon,

one

alone at the

centre of the other

(Tower

15)

which

overlaps

the western return

of the

proteichisma.

110

Landmauer

i

I18

pl.

40.

111

Geoffroy

de

Villehardouin states that

the

Byzantines

spent

most

of Lent

adding

these wooden

storeys

to the

towers,

before the Crusaders

attacked

from

shipboard.

112

Ramsay

and

Bell,

op.

cit.

491

fig.

366.

113

Landmauer

i

fig.

32 pls.

40-2.








210

A. W. LAWRENCE

IZ

O 10 20

30m

FIG.

13.

Constantinople.

Plan of

part

of

outwork

and

Pteron

with

towers

(Landmauer)

The second

of Leo's

successors,

Theophilus

(829-42),

repaired

or rebuilt

many

towers of

the wall

along

the

shore,

where their

design

was

appropriately unenterprising.

Few survived

unaltered to

1453.

II.

EARLY AND

MID TENTH

CENTURY:

ATTALEIA, SAMOTHRACE, PHILIPPI,

KYRENIA

In

904

Moslem

pirates

raided

Salonica,

and

allegedly

carried

off

22,000

saleable

inhabitants

together

with the inanimate loot. This

calamity

would have

been

enough

to rouse both the

reigning

emperor,

Leo

VI

(who

died

in

911),

and the

regent

for his infant successor to the

danger

that threatened another

seaport,

Attaleia/Antalya,

because its shrunken

population

could not

hope

to defend the

long

Hellenistic

perimeter. Inscriptions

dated to

912

and

916

record

shortening by

means of cross-walls

(together

with

a

simpler, perhaps

still

largely

Hellenistic,

barrier

along

the

harbour);

mention of 'the second wall'

implies

that one

had

already

been

completed

during

a first

stage

of the

programme.

Considerable

though

fragmentary

remains

of both are

sketchily

attested

in

a

plan

that Austrian

archaeologists

published

in

I890.114

And the

entire course

of each is marked as

clearly

visible,

except

for

a few

severely

ruined stretches

or actual

gaps,

on

an

incompetently

drawn

plan

of uncertain

date

(FIG.

14),

reproduced

by

the Curator of the

Antalya

Museum,

S.

Fikri,

in

his book on

the monuments

of the

province, Antalya

Livasi

Tarihi,

which was not

published

till

shortly

before

Turkey

discarded

the Arabic

alphabet

in

1928.

Fikri,

whose

age appeared

to

be at

114

See

n.

17

above.








A SKELETAL

HISTORY OF

BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

211

0

50m

N

A

-SEA:

CITY

WALL

PROTEICH

ISMA

INNER

WALLS

RUINED

FiG.

14.

Attaleia.

Plan

of

late

defences

(Fikri)








212

A. W. LAWRENCE

O

lm

FIG.

15.

Attaleia.

Sketch-plan

of

gatehouse (Author)

least

seventy

in

1950,

told

me

then

how he had watched with

impotent regret

the

progressive

destruction of walls

throughout

his life

(and,

some months

later,

an intact

Hellenistic

tower

beside the harbour was

demolished

in

my

own

presence).

He would

certainly

have

corrected

any flagrant

errors

in

the

plan.

On

it

the

two

wallsl15

are

stylistically distinguished;

the inner

one

(towards

the

north)

seems to have been the

more

formidable,

as befitted the

purpose

if

the small and

compact

enclosure,

formed

by

it

and

a

piece

of Hellenistic

city

wall,

was

intended

for

a

citadel that could

be used as

a

last

refuge.

In

1950

I

could find

no remnant of either

wall

apart

from the

ponderous

tower-gatehouse

(FIG.

15)

of the

larger

enclosure

and a

piece

of one

adjoining

curtain;

the other had

been

broken

off. This bent entrance is

not shown on the

Fikri

plan,

which marks

only

an

ordinary

tower

(probably

the

third or

fourth

from

the west

end of the south

Byzantine

cross-wall).

A

barrel-vault

covers the

square portion

of

the

interior

between

the arches over

the

outer

and

inner

gateways

and the

alcoves of the other

two sides.

A

little

fort

on Samothracell6

must have

been

built

against

Moslem

pirates,

who

operated

constantly

from their base

in

Crete

until the

Byzantines

took

it

in

960.

Excavation

uncovered

115

I

am indebted

to Dr. G.

L. Lewis and

Professor Seton

Lloyd

for

kindly

reading

the third

line

of the

Turkish

key

as

'I

Kale',

meaning

an internal

fortress

(though

its defences

on the

north and

east,

if not also

on

the

west,

were formed

by

the

city

wall). My photographs

of

the

gatehouse

from north-

west

and

south-west

(Courtauld

A5I/408-9)

are foreshortened.

116

Hesperia

37 (1968) 204-








A


FORTIFICATION

213

four coins of the tenth

century;

one of

them,

which

lay

in

the

foundation

fill,

was issued

between

919

and

944.

The site is on a

plateau

just

above the

uppermost

outskirts of the

pagan

Sanctuary,

from which

all

the material was derived. The

wall,

some

2

m

thick,

could have

carried

a

parapet

and a walk of

generous

width,

probably

at no

great height.

The exterior

is

roughly square (36-8

m

each

side) except

that

two

towers, 3

m

wide, project 4

m

southward

from

the corners of the south

side,

and

may

have been balanced

by

a lost

pair

on the

north.

...;~~

C~is2

.28;.9?,

O 0.0oo

6p-/64

p:P?.O

'20P/62'

u

_389./9

fP:

40

29/. /O

CHAPELLE

.00.7b'

cI"I-EoN~E.

.

76.00

s A10

to

1

o ,o

20

30

1.,1-48

,,rr.2~

fPOfRE,i]j

~FP

~,7J-~.

10J~

I

(-vL-

-

.o~

4s

r-

.',,~:

e^w

POT.

PNE

./Vj,

V-98

2270

i~Z~~i6

2

j?

(

,A

FIG.

I6. Philippi.

Plan of fort on summit

(BC(H)

During,

one

may

suppose,

the fourth-sixth

centuries

a

thorough

reconstruction was

completed

of ancient walls

that

both surrounded

Philippi

and intersected it at various levels

of the

great

hill;

the

summit,

in

the former

acropolis,

retained its

purely

military

function."'

It

alone,

no

doubt,

constituted the kastronwhich

Nicephorus

Phocas

renovated,

according

to

his

inscription

of the

year 963;

the end of the

enceinte

along

its outward face includes less

masonry

of

large

blocks

(then already 1300 years old)

than

rubble

obviously

of two

periods,

one of which

might

be

his. However

that

may

be,

he

surely

constructed the internal court

(FIG. 16)

of the

enclosure,

with the so-called

'keep'

(FIG.

17)-a

feature that could not

fail

to

bring lasting

honour to

the

emperor

who associated his name with it. It filled the

gap

between

two partition walls that project at right angles to one another from the enceinte, in conjunction

with which

they

delimited a court of

some

45

x

23

m

in a

corner of the summit enclosure

(which

was

roughly

diamond-shaped

with a maximum

length

of

160

m

and width of

70

m).

Each

partition

was thick

enough

to

carry

a

parapet

and a

walk,

probably

accessible

in

one

case from

a

curtain of the

enceinte,

in

the other

through

the

Byzantine

encasement of

an

ancient

tower;

neither communicated with the

intervening

'keep'.

Travellers had much

specious

justification

for

applying

the term

'donjon'

or

'keep'

to the

tower

which,

but for a

careless

layout,

would have been about

12

m

square,

is walled with

117

Ducoux and

Lemerle,

BCH

42

(1938) 4

pls.

ivA,

vi vii.








A SKELETAL

HISTORY

OF BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

215

unusually good

rubble

nearly 3

m

thick,118

and was

taller than

any

other

structure

in

sight;

part

of it still rises

12

m

above

ground,

though

somewhat reduced

in

height

(FIG.

I7).

The

only

original

doorway119

opens

1.50

m

above the

present

external

ground

level,

and could

be

held closed

by

a

massive draw-bar.

A

winding

stair

ascends beside

it

in

the

thickness

of the

wall and must have cast a glimmer of light in the ground floor, 6 m square, which is covered

by

a dome on

pendentives.

The

upper

rooms-one

on

the

flat

top

of the

dome,

and

two

more,

floored with wood-were rather

larger;

the lower two

were

lit

through only

two

or

three

embrasures

apiece,

and some or

perhaps

all of these ended at slits. The lost

top

floor

was,

no

doubt,

provided

with

apertures

for

shooting

in all

directions;

both

partitions

could be

enfiladed,

while

the

position

near the

centre of the enclosure

gave

a

comprehensive

view of the

entire

summit. Fallen tiles indicate the material

(though

not

the

shape)

of the

roof; they

are

thick

enough

for

men to have

congregated

on

it.

The dimness

of

the

interior,

up

to

the

height preserved, proves

that

the tower

was

not

residential,

therefore

not a

keep;

at

most,

the rooms could have been used as dormitories

or

for

refuge,

but

storage

is

the

likely

purpose.120

The chief motive for

building

the tower

was

unquestionably

to

safeguard

the inner

court,

in which the back of the enceinte is lined with

barracks;

these could

have

held

at

least

fifty

beds in double rows and

a few more

for

higher

ranks

in

a

single

row beside the

gate. Evidently

the

garrison

of

the enclosure

lived

here,

ready

for

emergency.

And

the court

would have been

capable

of continued

resistance,

thanks

to

the

tower,

if

the

enemy

had

penetrated

into

the

enclosure

(which,

properly

defended,

should

have

been

impregnable

against

overt

attack,

but

there

was

always

a risk of

surprise).

The

Byzantine recovery

of

Cyprus

in

965

was doubtless consolidated

by fortifying

the

best

landing-places,

one

of which

would

inevitably

have been

Kyrenia.

A

fort,

of which the

remains

can still be seen

in

the otherwise Frankish and Venetian castle beside

the

harbour

there,

may

have stood

till

688 when

a

treaty

obliged

the

Byzantines

to

demilitarize

the whole

island,

and

there is no reason to think it had been repaired during the Arab period that followed.

A

replacement

for its south wall

may

therefore

be ascribed

(though

not

confidently)

to the

tenth

century.121

It

was thicker

than

its

predecessor,

and from it

projected

three

pentagonal

beaked

towers,

close

together.

But

Venetian additions above have left no

really

precise

data

on them.

12.

QALCAT

SIM'AN,

979,

AND

SMALLER

BEACON

FORTS

Insufficiency

of

data

prohibits any

attempt

to

describe

a

great

work,

mainly

of

979-89,

the

Armenian

city

wall at

Ani,

with

its

sturdy

apsidal

towers which

may

have

been

built

under

Arab

as well

as

Byzantine

influence.122

It

was

evidently

far

superior,

though

alike

in

design

and

execution,

to a

contemporary Byzantine

fortress

of

rather similar

scale,

which

has been

adequately studied. This, however, must not be accepted as representative of the age, for it

was

hurriedly

contrived

in

979

to

protect

the

monastery

of

St.

Simeon

the

Stylite,123

re-established

by

the

Byzantines

after

three and a half

centuries

of disuse

under

Muslim

rule.

Some

of the

old

buildings

must

still have

been

serviceable

(at

least,

with

a

minimum of

repair),

118

The

masonry

was tied

by many

wooden

beams laid

flat

in

chases

packed

with

cement,

through

from

the inward to

the

outward

face.

That

method of

reinforcement had

been

common in

Hellenistic

walls,

even

of

large

blocks;

prevalence

in

late

Byzantine

walls

may

be

deduced from use in

the

medieval

Ottoman

castle at

Kalecik.

119

A

later

doorway

formed the

sole entrance to a

chapel

that

was

added,

utilizing

the

shorter

of

the

partitions

for

a

side-wall.

120

Food

for

several

months

could have

been

stored in

the

tower. The

rainfall on

both

tower and

barracks

must have

been

conserved

in

the cistern

between them.

121

Antiquities

Dept. Kyrenia

Castle

(1961)

81.

122

The defences of Ani

were

repeatedly

altered

between

the

terminal dates

of

783

and

1312,

and

investigation

has

been

restricted

owing

to

the

proximity

of the Soviet

frontier.

123

G.

Tchalenko,

Villages

ntiques

e la

Syrie

du

Nord

(1953)

i

242,

ii

pls. 79,

82,

209;

Courtauld.








A SKELETAL

HISTORY


217

causes,

only

intentional demolition

can

readily

account for the break in an

exceptionally

sturdy

wall at its

very

outset

(PLATE 9a)

where it left the

flank

of a tower on the north

end

to

run

some

45

m

obliquely

outwards and

join

a

square

structure

identifiable as the

lofty

base

for

a

beacon.

This

stands

on

slightly higher ground

than the north

end,

and beside the

verge

of a steep descent; its view includes a wide arc of the skirts of the mountain towards the Afrin

valley.

The fire would

have

signalled

warning

of

enemy troop-movements

in

time for

countermeasures

to

be

organized

in

the

low

country, though scarcely

for

reinforcements

to

go up

to

Qal'at

Sim'an,

which is within a

day's

walk of

Aleppo;

the main

function of

the

beacon

was

to

alert the

populous region.

And

the value attached

to it is

demonstrated

by

the

siting

of

the north end

of

the fortress

in a

depression

instead

of,

like other

sectors,

above

a

slope;

the

military

advantage

of

overlooking

attackers was sacrificed

in

order to

leave

space

enough

for

the

buildings

within

to

escape

sparks.

The

connecting

wall is

composed

of

cemented

rubble

between

thin

faces

of

masonry

which,

at

the

top,

rose above

the core to form

a

parapet

along

either

side

of a

corridor;

so one

man

at

a time

could

walk,

sheltered from

missiles,

between a

tower of the

north end and

the beacon.

Moreover,

the slant

at

which

the

corridor-wall

projects

let its entire

length

be enfiladed from that tower and also commanded

from

another,

each

shooting against

one side

of it.

Adjuncts

of the same

type,

a

lengthy

wall

projecting obliquely

to

a

tower-like

base,

are

known

in

Greece and

Bulgaria.

Each is

attached to

a

fort that seems

to

have

existed for no

other

purpose

than to

service

its

beacon.

One was

on

the

summit

of the

promontory

of

Monemvasia.124

It is

represented complete

on

a

small-scale Venetian

plan,

but

has

perished

except

for

fragmentary

ruins

(FIG.

19).

It

was

a

little,

lop-sided tetrapyrgos,

and

aligned

with

the

corner of a tower runs

the

connecting

wall,

2.40

m thick in

the

existing

lowest courses

and

75

m

long,

slanting

out to

a

foundation

about io m

square (but

rounded at

the

corners),

which

evidently

bore a

circular

hollow

structure.125

The first mention of the fort at Monemvasia is by Idrisi, who finished his geographical

compilation

in

I154:

'a

castle

very high

above the

sea,

from

which one

may

look

across to

Crete.'

The

observant

seafarer who was the

source

of

this

information

would not

have

known

of the

beacon

because

it

must

have

long

been

disused. It

might

conceivably

have

been built

in

the

eighth century

when the Arab

fleet

dominated the

seas,

but

cannot

have been

desperately

needed till

the Muslim

pirates

who

seized

Khania

in

823

had

subdued

all

Crete;

they

operated

at sea

increasingly

till

960.

Perhaps, though,

the

beacon was renovated

later,

to

cope

with

the North

African

recrudescence of

piracy,

for

it

was so well

preserved

after

Venice

annexed

Monemvasia as to be

converted

into

a

powder-magazine,

which

exploded

in

1689.

The

present

scatter

of

masonry

suggests

that

total

destruction

resulted.

On

historical

grounds,

the

eighth

century

is the earliest

plausible

dating

for

a

fort

on

the

Sakar Mountains, since it must have been intended to

give

warning

of

Bulgar

raids.

A

sketch-plan

with no

scale

has

been

published

(FIG.

20).126

The

ruin,

called

Biiuyuiik

ale

(Turkish

for

'Big

Castle'),

is shown

as a

square

tetrapyrgos

with

a wall

protruding

from

the corner of one

tower

and

ending

at

a

large

square

foundation;

a ditch

encircled the

whole

site.

124

Kevin

Andrews,

Castles

of

the

Morea

(1953)

206

figs.

218-19

pl.

36-Venetian

plan.

125

The

roughly

contemporary

Venetian

plan

calls the

hollow

structurea

mill,

although

no one would

have

transported

grain

so far

across uneven

rocky ground

when

there was

a

wind-swept cliff-top

immediately

above the town.

The

same

identification as windmills has been

accepted

by

Welsh

countrymen

to

explain

a chain of much

smaller ruins that

were

actually

the

bases

of beacons to

give warning

of

pirate

raids

in

years

around

6oo

(Lloyd, Archaeologia

ambrensis

13

(1964)

I50).

126

Velkov,

GNMP/Annuaire

du

Musle

National

Plovdiv

ii

(1950) 176,

(in

French)

183, fig.

13.








218

A. W. LAWRENCE

13.

END

OF

THE

TENTH

CENTURY:

PACUIUL

LUI

SOARE, SAHYUN, OHRID,

DIDYMA

John

Tzimisces

greatly

extended

the

Byzantine territory

in

both

Europe

and

Asia. His

Balkan

conquests

brought

the

frontier into

the delta

of the

Danube,

where towns

of

Roman

N

ITCH

N

.Q4/

0 30m

A

FIG.19. Monemvasia. Sketch-plan of fort with beacon (Author)

FIG.

20. BuiyiikKale. Sketch-plan of fort with beacon (Velkov)

origin

were

being

attacked

by

the

Russian fleet. He

is

presumed

to

have

built,

in

or soon after

972,

a base for

his own

navy

on a

long

island,

Pacuiul lui

Soare,

where

only

a fraction of

the

fort has

escaped

destruction

by

the

river;

a

monograph

in

Romanian,

Pacuiul ui

Soare

1972)

by

P. Diaconu

and

D.

Vilceanu,

interprets

the

ruins,

with

a

resume

and

list of

illustrations

in

French. The determinant

feature is

a

stepped

landing-place

that measures

nearly

24

m

between

a

pair

of towers

that bounded

it,

projecting

Io

m

from

the wall

behind,

in

the centre

of which

is a

gateway,

3-90

m

wide

externally

but

expanding

to

4-20

m

within;

slits

that

open

obliquely

through

the

masonry

alongside

probably

held cables

for

mooring

shipping.

About

Ioo

m

downstream

the wall

turns

sharply

at a

tower

that

has one

side

curved but

the other

straightand placed at an obtuse angle, as though to present less of an obstacle to ice-floes. The

wall

beyond

the

corner

runs

straight

inland to

a

break

50

m

onward,

and stands

to a

height

of

over

4

m.

It

includes

another

entrance,

through

a tower

that

projects

nearly

9

m

forward

and

slightly

inward. The

passage

contracts

to

3-60

m

both

at the

mouth,

where

a

portcullis

moved

in

grooves

16 cm

wide,

and at the

inner

end,

where

there are holes

for

a

locking-bar.

In

975

John

Tzimisces

captured

Sigon/Sahyun

from the

Aleppines,

and the

Byzantines

retained

ownership

into the

beginning

of the twelfth

century,

when

the

place

became

a fief

of the Crusaders'

Principality

of Antioch. The construction

of the

French-style

castle,'27

called

Saone,

was

presumably

undertaken

soon

after,

and

changed

the

system

of defence

(FIG.

21

).

127

T.

S. R.

Boase,

Castles ndChurches

f

the

Crusading ingdom

(1967)

49, 51;

R.

G.

Smail,

Crusading

Warfare

(1956) 236

fig.

6;

W.

Miiller-Wiener,

Castles

f

theCrusaders

1966)

10,

44,

96-7

pls.

12-13,

17-19-








A

SKELETAL HISTORY OF

BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION

219

The site

occupied

a

tongue

of

plateau

above the confluence of

two streams

that

had worn ravines

in

the limestone. Where

these are

750

m

distant from the eroded

cliff that

forms the

extremity

of the

tongue, they

are

120

m

apart,

but connected

by

a

rock-cut ditch of

astonishing dimensions;

it is

I8 m

wide

with

practically

vertical

sides,

27

m

deep

to

a flat

bottom.

The

stone extracted must have been

used

for

building

the

castle;

probably

one

motive for

making

the ditch so immense was to

quarry

from

it.

There

is

some reason to

suspect

that

a

compara-

tively

shallow

cutting

existed before the

Crusade,

or even

before

975,

because there

are remnants

(PLATE

I9b)

of

at

least one

Byzantine

cross-wall

(possibly

two) among

the

starkly

impressive

Frankish works that restricted

entry

from

the

bridge.

But the

principal Byzantine

fortifications,

those

that

surely go

back to

just

after

975,

can still be

seen,

though

in

bad

condition,

between

Ioo

and

200

m

inwards from the

abyss; they

became

redundant when

Crusader

improvements

obstructed hostile

approach.

The

Byzantines

put

a

triple

barrier across the

tongue,

composed

in

turn

of

a

masonry-lined

counterscarp,

a

shallow

ditch,

and

masonry

that

lined the

scarp

and rose

free-standing

over it

upon

the

slope up

a

natural

hillock.

A

second ward started on

top

of the

hillock,

which

bears the

confused ruins of

a

small

fort,

designed

rather like an

unsymmetrical

tetrapyrgos;

some

parts

of

it,

no

doubt,

were

habitable but others fit

only

for

storage.

The

height

of the

position

gave

command over both

wards;

in

that

respect,

comparison with an isolated European keep is justifiable, but

differences

in

execution

outweigh

the resemblance. The second

ward extended

to

another little

ditch,

beyond

which a

third

ward,

long

and

narrow,

gradually

descends to the

extremity

of the

tongue,

enclosed

by

a wall

so

rambling

and

perfunctory

as

to

suggest

that

it

might

have

originated

earlier

than

any

other

feature at

Sahyun.

The

Byzantines

had

reconquered

almost

all

the

territory

seized

by

the

Bulgarians, except

for

Macedonia,

before

the

accession of the last Tsar but

one,

Samuel

(976-1014).

At

some such date

as

990

he moved

his

capital

to

Ochrida/Ohrid,

where he resided in an enclosure128 subsequently called the

Upper

Serai,

and built

it an

entrance

(PLATE

20a)

that

is,

inevitably,

of

pure Byzantine style;

it

might

have been either

an imitation of

an

individual

older monument

or else

genuinely

CRUSADER

BYZANTINE

ARAB

LOWER

COURT

POSTERN

POSTERN

JPILLAR

DITCH

BYZANTINE

KEEP

WALL

IsLJO

CISERN

ARAB

CONSTRUCTIONS

,MINARET

/

POSTERN

,7y7/

BYZANTINE

WALL

CISTERN

ySSTASB

O

KEEP

GREAT

DITCH-

PILLAR

S 50

100

ENTRY

Scale

In metros

FIG.

21.

Sahyun.

Plan of

castle

(Boase)

representative

of its own

time,

but we

can

be

sure that

Samuel,

who

campaigned

over much of the

Balkans,

would not

have

accepted

an obsolete

design.

The

structure,

of unfaced cemented

rubble,

is still

generally

sound

in

spite

of its

far

from

glamorous appearance.

However,

the outer

arch,

now

broken,

looks

as

though

it had

128

A.

Deroko,

Srednjevekovniradovi

Srbiji,Crnoj

Gori

Makedoniji1950)

i94

figs.

36,

40;

Courtauld.








220

A. W.

LAWRENCE

been

a

Turkish

replacement.

A

pair

of

rather

small

oval

towers129

flanks the

passage,

which

is about

42

m

wide

except

where contracted

by

this outer arch for

the

purpose

of

masking

a

portcullis,

and

by

the

piers

of

the

gateway

at the

inward end.

The

portcullis

was

operated

inside

a room

overlying

the broadest

piece

of the

passage

and accessible

from

both

towers,

which also communicated with the walk along the curtains.

An

earthquake

in

988

damaged

the fortress into which the

great

temple

at

Didyma

had

been

transformed

(probably

in

the seventh

century),130

and

an

inscription

records

some

measure

of

rebuilding;

this

may

possibly

have introduced

modifications,

though

the

scope

for

them

was

severely

limited. The excavators of the

temple

removed all the

defensive work

they

found,

and

expressed

no

opinion

on

whether

it

was

homogeneous

or

of diverse

ages,

but

we

may,

at

least,

feel

assured

that

it had

met

the

standards

required

for

security

in

the

990s.

14.

END OF

THE

ELEVENTH CENTURY:

ZVECAN

AND

ST.

HILARION

Anna

Comnena

records Serbian

defeats

of

Byzantine

troops

in

1093

and

I

Io6

near

Sphentzanion/Zvetan, where a fort was then held by the Serbs; they probably built it to

support

their

incursions into

Byzantine territory

from

Io91

onwards.

It stands

on

a

conical

hill.

The

style

is,

of

course,

purely

Byzantine.

There were

four

towers;

two

are

approximately

rectangular,

one

is a

beaked

pentagon,

while the other

has

only

three

exposed

facets

(one

of

them

slanting)

in

order to

suit the

angles

of

the

adjacent

curtains,

one

of

which

retreats.131

A

monastery

seems first

to have

occupied

the twin

peaks

of

a

mountain

called

Didymus,

which

rises

abruptly

6 km

inland

from

Kyrenia

to a

height

of over

700

m. The

buildings may

have

needed

little alteration

to

convert

rooms into

barracks,

but were

barely

defensible,

being

too

easily

accessible from

the

peaks'

joint

southward

slope;

no less

than

a

hectare of this

was

therefore

enclosed

as an

outer

ward.132

The

purpose

of

the fort

must

have been to

station

a

garrison

for

controlling

the

pass

between

the

north

coast and

the central

plain

of

Cyprus,

as would have become

obviously

advisable in view of a rebellion in

io92;

the

emperor,

Alexius

Comnenus,

is

likely

to have

originated

all

three fortresses

on

the

northern

watershed,

but

later

work

predominates

at

Buffavento and Kantara as

well as

in

these

upper,

residential

wards.

A

hundred

years

later

the

fort

proved

able

to

withstand

Frankish

attacks but

eventually

surrendered;

a French

corruption

of the

name

Didymus

to Dieudamour then came into

use,

and much

rebuilding

followed,

transforming

the site to a

Lusignan

castle now known as St.

Hilarion.

However,

the defences of the outer ward

escaped

drastic

alteration,

apart

from

the

imposition

of a

European-style

barbican,

and

Lusignan

restorations

are

practically

confined to

its

vicinity.

The outer

ward was

fully

enclosed

only

on the

west,

where the

Byzantine

wall

runs

straight

uphill

in

traditional

manner,

and

along

the

south,

where it followed

a

contour;

higher up,

the

steepness

of the rock made it

unnecessary

to

link

with either

peak,

and

a

Byzantine

tunnel

still forms the entrance to

the lower

one,

from which

steps

ascended

to

the other.

The

design

was uniform

on both west and south.

Roughly

semicircular

towers

(PLATE

2ob,

2

Ia)

occur at

fairly regular

intervals,

mostly

of some

30

m.

Few towers are backed

by

solid

masonry;

instead,

an arch

spans

a

single

wide

doorway,

or

a

pair

of arches

springs

either

side

of

a

pier.

The

dimensions of

the rooms within

vary

in

each

tower;

typical

instances of

maximum

length

and breadth measure

2-70

x

2"25

m

and

3'45

x

2"70

m,

within

masonry

at that level

75

cm

129

The maximum dimensions

of

the towers are

approxi-

mately:

6 m

projection,

5

m

width,

height (slightly reduced)

13

m,

internal

length 5

m

and width

3

m.

130

See n.

95

above.

131

Zdravkovi'

and

Jovanovid,

Actes

du

XII

Congrls

nternat.

d'tudes

byz.

Ohlrid

9g6

ii

(1964) 423

fig.

2;

Jovanovi',

Starinar

13-14 (1962-3) 137,

(in

French)

150,

fig.

6.

132

Antiquities Dept.

St. Hilarion

Castle

(1950).








A SKELETAL

HISTORY


221

thick. The exterior

tapers

upward,133

aided

by

set-backs of some

15

cm beneath the two

upper

storeys

and the

parapet.

Ramps

(PLATE

0C)

lead to both

upper

floors

of

Tower

'18',

which

stands at the south-west corner.

In

Tower

'19'

on the west

slope

(PLATE 1a)

the second

storey

was

2.I7

m

high

and floored

2-10 m

above

the walk on the downward

curtain;

the

doorway

from the upward curtain was probably in the lost back of the second storey. The embrasures

in

towers are about

75

cm

high,

and

splay

to

30-45

cm

from not more than

25

cm at

the

mouth

of

the

slit.

15.

MID

AND

LATE

TWELFTH

CENTURY; CONSTANTINOPLE, PERGAMON,

MILETUS

Manuel

II

Comnenus

(I

I48-80)

built

a

long

salient

to

include

part

of the Blachernae suburb

to

which the

imperial

residence had

been transferred.

He was a

paladin

credited with

martial

exploits

of

incredible

audacity,

and an element of ostentation can also be

discerned

in

his

wall.

The

curtains,

3-75

m

thick

and buttressed

within,

were

15-18

m

high,

of which much

is still

preserved

up

to the base

of

the

parapet.

The

towers,134

spaced

at

intervals

as short as

18-35

m,

were calculated

to

attract attention

by

a wanton

diversity

of

shape

even more

than

by their scale and massiveness. An oval outline was reasonable in the case of one that projects

from an

outward

bend,

but

no

particular advantage

resulted from

the

differentiation of others

that

are

semicircular,

or curved

beyond

a

semicircle,

or

polygonal

with a

varying

number of

facets,

or

approximately square.

Internally

they

are

vaulted,

with

alcoves extended

by

embrasures

that

ended

at slits.

Some of Manuel's towers

must

date

early

in

his

reign,

but

he

may

afterwards have added more. The seventh

in

the

sequence

bears

an

inscription

of

Isaac

II

Angelus,

dated to

I

186-7,

and

presumably

was inserted for the sake

of

closer

spacing.

The

slope

of the

acropolis

at

Pergamon

had

been deserted for several centuries

till

Manuel

II

refortified

it

and

encouraged

the

growth

of

a

new

town,

between

I161

and

I173

according

to

Nicetas Choniatis. The

wall

was visible

on

both north and south sides of the

hill135

until about

I88o

when it was almost

entirely

demolished

by

excavators

in

order to free

Hellenistic

remains;

they

spared

only

a

few towers

on

the

south

(PLATE 21b)

which had been

attached to

a

terrace wall of the ancient

gymnasium.

Crude

plans

and sketches drawn

at

the

time

of destruction

represent

a

line of five

square

(or

at

any

rate

rectangular)

towers on

the

north

together

with

a minor

gateway

formed

by

an

overlap

and secluded behind

a

simple

barbican.

On

the

gymnasium

terrace stood four

approximately

semicircular

towers,

one

rectangular

at

a

slight

outward

bend,

and one

circular at an

abrupt

corner.

A

main

gateway

on the south of the

hill

was

flanked

by rectangular

towers

and

opened

into

an

inner court.

A

hypothetical dating

to the same

period

for a town wall

at

Miletus136

is

too

plausible

to

be

ignored.

Here too

an

entrance was

flanked

by

approximately

square

towers.

The wall

in

general

seems

to

have been

uninteresting;

it was

demolished

for the excavation of

classical

remains.

16.

THE

SUCCESSOR

STATES,

I204-C. I

250

A

by-product

of the

Fourth

Crusade,

the Frankish annexation

of

most

of the

Greek

mainland

and

islands,

and even

parts

of the Asia Minor

coast,

was confirmed

by

the

building

of baronial

castles,

which must

gradually

have disseminated

knowledge

of

European

methods outside

the

133

Another

apsidal

tower with an

emphatic taper

is

apparently

the

only Byzantine

relic

in

the

otherwise

Seljuk

fortress

at

Anamur,

within

sight

on

the

opposite

coast of Asia

Minor;

it stands

next to the

gateway

(Courtauld

A51/354).

It

must

have

been built

as

a

defence

against

Moslem

aggression,

perhaps

rather earlier than

1092,

but

looks

too like the

towers

of St.

Hilarion for the

resemblance to

be dismissed

as

coincidental.

134

Landmauer

i

figs. 28-9.

135

AR

1978-9 67;

Altertiimer

on

Pergamon

(1885) pl.

iii;

i.I

9;

i.2

307

Beib.

63-4;

AM

29

(I904)

pls.

viii,

x-xi.

136

Miiller-Wiener,

IstMitt

17 1967) 285

fig.

3.








222

A.

W. LAWRENCE

areas

occupied.

The

fall

of

Constantinople

itself led to

an

outburst

of

fortification,

initially

pure

Byzantine

in

style,

in

the various successor

states.

Two of

these,

Trebizond

and

Epirus,

were remote

from the

public

view,

but the

third,

the Lascarid

Empire

of

Nicaea,

must

have

seemed

at

constant

risk

from

the

Franks,

and its

capital,

with the

city

wall

dating

from

the

third century, is unlikely to have regained full strength after siege and capture in og97. Even

from

its

present

dilapidated

condition

we can see

that

in

I204

it

was

a virtual museum of

restoration continued

throughout

all its

periods,

and so diverse

a

fabric was almost

certain to

be unreliable

in

some

parts,

however

sound

in

others.

Moreover

the chances of

collapse

under

bombardment were

increasing

owing

to the

development

of the

trebuchet,137

a

siege-engine

that

anyone

could

make,

which

slung

unprecedentedly

heavy

missiles,

but with

inaccurate

aim

(a

drawback

besiegers

of Nicaea

might

have found

of

comparatively

slight consequence

on the

flat

terrain).

The

expedient adopted

by

the

Lascarids

in

1204-22

was to build

an

outworka38

that also

acted as

a

buffer;

it

surrounded the whole

city except

where the wall

accompanied

the

lake-shore.

There had been

many

precedents

around

the

fifth

century

for such

a tall and

massive

proteichisma,

defensible from a walk on

top,

and

separated

from the wall

by

a few

metres or

as much as

ten;

it

was

usually straight

but on occasion

curved outwards

to

pass

the

towers

that encroached on

the

intervening

space.

When the

type

was revived

at

Nicaea,

the

thickness was

i-6o-2

m

and

on

every

sector

included

a

varying

number of

embrasures

ending

with

slits;

the

height

is

3

or

4

m

to the

walk,

above

which two

more should be allowed

for

the

parapet

and

merlons;

the distance

from the wall

is

13-16

m

apart

from encroachment

by

towers.

But

an

improvement

on

this

fifth-century

scheme

was

evidently

inspired

by

the

Theodosian

double

system

at

Constantinople,

where

a

rather

small tower

stands

opposite

the

middle of each

curtain of

the

main wall.

At

Nicaea,

the outwork

bulges opposite

the middle

of each curtain

into

a

slightly

taller salient

that is

externally

semicircular

and

5

m

wide,

but

internally only 2 m. These salients were really stands for shooting, whether off the roof or

through

an

embrasure

inside;

they

were

miserable substitutes

for the towers

of the Theodosian

outer

wall,

but

presumably

the utmost

that could be

afforded for

repetition

in

such

quantity.

Some

of them are

enclosed,

like

turrets,

but most

had an

open

gorge.

Gateways

through

the

outwork

are

flanked

by

taller

and somewhat

broader

turrets,

apsidal

or

horseshoe-shaped,

with embrasures

opening

from

the room. The

outwork blanketed

the

defenders'

fire from the

wall,

which

was therefore

raised

by

2'50

m in

the

towers,

less

in

some

curtains,

but not

at all

in

others.

Altogether,

this

Lascarid

transformation

at Nicaea was

an

unsatisfactory

makeshift.

Trapezus/Trebizond

had

been

the seat of

a

provincial

governor

before

it was chosen

as the

capital

of

a successor

empire,

which

lasted

257 years,

and

its fortifications

must

incorporate

relics of

many

centuries.'39

But the

topography

required

them

to be

like

cliffs of

masonry,

featureless

except

for bends that divided towers from recesses; there are no indications of date

unless

parapets

are

preserved (and

these

may

have been

replacements).

However,

at Heraclea

Pontica/Eregli,

the frontier

town

towards

Nicaea,

an

inscription

records

the

rebuilding

of

a

tower

in

120o6-7,

and

probably

this formed

part

of

a

general

renovation

of the

city

wall;140

in

that sector

it involved

only rectangular

towers

(now

mostly

demolished),

but

in a more

137

The trebuchet

was

developed

by

a

gradual process

of

improvement,

probably

in

France.

The

Byzantines

merely

transliterated

the word

into Greek.

One of the Arabic

names

means

'Frankish

mangonel'

while

the other calls

it the

maghrabi,

.e.

'Western',

mangonel.

The dissemination

of the

weapon

should

have been

rapid

because

of

the

simplicity

of

both its construction

and

its

operation.

138

W.

Karnapp

and

A. M.

Schneider,

Die

Stadtmauer

on

Iznik

figs.

7-10

pls.

3-7, 13,

plan

at end.

139

Talbot

Rice, JHS

52

(1932)

47;

E.

Janssens,

Trdbizonde

en Colchide

1967) 238 figs.

14,

31,

56.

140

W.

Hoepfner,

Herakleia

ontike-Eregli

(1966) 42-5 figs.

16-17

pl.

4b;

the

supposedly

Byzantine

citadel

is not datable.








224

A. W. LAWRENCE

looks

as

though

it

had

belonged

to an internal

apse,

which would

designate

the room as

a

chapel.

The

main entrance

bends,

unaccompanied

by

slits,

through

a

tower

that

generally

resembles

the

others,

but the

doorway

at the back is wider and

its arch overlies

a

plain tympanum

of

thin bricks, while the outer doorway pierces the extremity of the right flank. Here too the

arch

has

an

unusually

wide

span

and overlies another

brick-filled

tympanum,

but this one

was concave

(and

seems to

have been

plastered,

perhaps

into

the form of

a

shell),

so that

it

needed to

be

supported

on

the

tops

of

thick

jambs,

which have

recently

been

replaced

from

the

ground

upwards

in

modern brickwork.

The

only

other entrance

was a

postern.

It

pierces

the curtain that

adjoins

the

main

entrance,

from the outer

doorway

of

which it is

fully

visible

some

20-30

m

distant;

the

simple

arch

springs

from the

straight edges

of

a

rubble

aperture,

still

intact

except

at

the

foot,

where

the threshold also has been

lost.

The entire fortress as

Gardhiki

is

of one

build,

and

purely

Byzantine

in

style.

Neither

claim

could

safely

be

made for

Angelokastro,144

which

is

known

to have existed

by

1294.

Frankish

or

South

Italian influence

may

be

suspected

in

this

tiny

fort,

indescribable

in its

present

state

of ruin. It stood on a low

ridge

overlooking

a track which leads to the ford of the Achelous

immediately

east

of the

ancient site called Palaiomanina.

17.

LAST

DATABLE

WORKS,

I26I-I4453

In

1261

a

revolution

at

Constantinople

delivered

it to the

emperor

of

Nicaea,

Michael VIII

Palaeologus.

He

restored

towers

there which

the Franks had allowed

to

decay.145

Historically

of immense

consequence

was an

acquisition

of

territory

from the Frankish ruler

of the

Peloponnese,

who had been

on a

visit

to

Constantinople

at

the

time

of

the

coup,

and

ransomed

himself

from

captivity

by

swearing

allegiance

to

Michael and

ceding

three fortresses

(Mistra,

Monemvasia,

and

Maina/Tigani)

at extremities

of Laconia and

Mani;

these were

duly

handed

over in

1262.

But the Pope pronounced that the oath of allegiance was invalid, and the Franks

began

hostilities

in

the same

year.

The

new

Byzantine

province,

bounded

by

the three cessions

and the

purchase

of

Geraki,

encountered

perils

into the next

century;

an

incidental

result

must have

been that

officers sent from the

capital

studied

fortifications

inherited

from the

Franks,

upon

which

their

lives

might depend.

Other

examples

were visible on

Aegean

islands

that

Michael

recovered.

And,

early

in the

fourteenth

century,

the

Genoese

improved

the

hurriedly

built

wall

of

their

Galata

trade-post

and so demonstrated

the

Italian

style

of

fortification

to the

court

itself.

According

to

Cantacuzenus

(who

was

adult at

the

time),

both

the wall

around

Gynaecocastron/Avret-Hisar

and

its

'immense

tower,

of such

great strength

as

to withstand

enemy siege-engines',

were

built

by

Andronicus the

Younger;

he was

the

rebel

governor

of

Thrace for a few

years

before his

reign

of

1328-41.

The ruinsl46 crown a

rugged

limestone

bluff that rises over

Ioo

m

above

a

river

called the Zena

or

apparent

derivatives

of that

word,

which

in

Slavonic means

'woman'.

But

Cantacuzenus

thought

the castle owed

its name to

a

saying

that

it

would be

impregnable

even

if

garrisoned

by

women.

Gynaecocastron

was

easily

approached

only

from the

south,

where

the

main

entrance

is

still

visible,

about

3.6

m

wide. The

drop

towards the west was too

steep

for the wall to need

any

towers

throughout

its

length

of

nearly

200oo

m,

and so

probably

was

that to the

north,

where all

masonry

has

fallen;

the

less

steep slope

to

the east was

given

one

small tower of

slight

projection

along

a

course of

nearly

200

m. The width of the enclosure is about

30

m

144

Orlandos,

op.

cit.

9

(I961) 54

figs.

2,

4;

Courtauld.

145

Landmauer

i

17.

146

Woodward,

BSA

23 (I919-20)

98.








A SKELETAL


225

at the north but

expands

in

conformity

with

the rock

to

Ioo

m at

the

south

end. The

extensive

view over

central

Macedonia

has

changed

owing

to the

drainage

of

Lake

Arjani,

which

I

saw

reaching

as far

as

Chauchitsa,

so

barring

direct

access

to the

hill

from the

north.

The

rectangular

north

end

was

divided from

the

rest

of the

enclosure

by

two

echeloned

pieces of cross-wall (the longer containing a gateway) and, between them, the tower of which

Cantacuzenus wrote. His

praise

was

fully justified,

for

its

length

was

I2-5

m,

its

width

nearly

9

m,

and the thickness of

its outer walls is

approximately

I-4o

m. The

north

frontage

was

prolonged

by

the

shorter

cross-wall,

the south

frontage by

the

other.

Internally

there

were

twin rooms on

the

ground

floor;

the

eastern one has

collapsed,

the

western retains

traces

of

a

vault which rose

to about

4-5

m

above

the

floor,

and

there was an

upper

storey,

which must

have

covered

both

rooms.

No

doorways

are

preserved;

the

fall

of the

north-east corner

of

the

lower west

room,

which

must

have

contained

one,

leaves

no indication

whether it was

placed

at

the

back or

in

the

partition

leading

to the east room.

A

slit

opens

to the

west,

another

to

the

south.

A

fireplace

and

its flue

stand between them.

Unquestionably

the tower was

an

imitation

of a Frankish

keep,

in

an

enclosure

equivalent

to

two wards.

A tower of Yannina castle147 is entered at the back

through

a

remarkably

tall

arch,

over

which

is inscribed

the name

Thomas

(spelt

with

an

omicron);

he

can

scarcely

have

been

other

than

the Serbian

husband of

Angelina

Palaeologus,

Despot

of

Epirus 1367-84.

A

fort

beside

the

harbour of

Thasos148

had

square

towers;

one is

mentioned

in

a will

of

I384.

The

remains

are now

inconsiderable.

The last

great

work,149

a

wall

across the

Isthmus

of

Corinth,

presumably

utilized remnants

of

Justinian's,

if

not also of

earlier

predecessors;

it was

undertaken

by

the

viceroy

of Mistra

in

1396,

and

the

Turks

overcame

it

in

the next

year.

Known

as

the Hexamilion

because of

its six-mile

length,

in

which

there are

said to have been

150

towers,

it

was

restored

by

order

of the

emperor

during

twenty-five

days

of

1415;

the

Turks took

only

one

day

to

capture

it,

and then attempted its destruction. It was again restored, and in 1446 held out against artillery

for a

week,

after

which the

Turks

demolished

it

so

effectively

that it

did

not obstruct

their

subsequent

invasions of the

Peloponnese.

No

vestiges

have been

recognized.

The

defences of

Constantinople

were

strengthened

while

amicable relations

prevailed

with

the

Emir

Mehmed

I,

1413-21.

They

withstood

a

siege

by

Murad

II

throughout

the

summer

of

1422;

the

damage

inflicted must

have been

repaired

quite

soon,

but

inscriptions

document

extremely

thorough

restoration

of

towers

150

during

several

years

up

to

1440.

Murad, however,

made no further

attempt

on the

city.

He died

in

1451,

whereupon

Mehmed

II

started

preparations

for

the final

siege.

Its

success,

in

1453,

was

due

primarily

to

the

cannonade that

in

seven

weeks

wrecked much

of the

outer

Theodosian wall and

breached a few

portions

of

the

inner

one,

and

ultimately

to the

overwhelming

number of

assailants fired

by

the

promised

alternatives, of either incomparable loot or else eternal enjoyment of the carnal pleasures

awaiting every martyr

for

Islam.

A.

W. LAWRENCE

147

Dakaris,

ADelt

19

(1964) B3 314

pl.

353-

148

Guidede Thasos

(1967)

16.

149

Italian

as

well

as

Byzantine

influence

on the

Despots

of

Serbia

(a

Turkish

vassal-state)

resulted

in

two

imposing

fortresses: he wall around

Manasija

monastery

at

Resava,

in

1407-1o

(Deroko,

op.

cit.

figs.

I30-I

pl.

33;

Courtauld),

and

the

city

wall and castle at

Smederevo,

in

1428-30

(Deroko

figs.

139-41

pls.

12,

14, 30;

Starinar

2

(1950)

59,

and

7-8

(1956-7)

18I;

Courtauld).

150

It

is

arguable

that

the

style

of

facing

adopted

by

the

Palaeologi,

which consisted

of

small

regular

blocks

(Landmauer

ii

pl. 21), may effectively

have

localized

damage

caused

by

impact.








226

A. W. LAWRENCE

APPENDIX:

SOME FEATURES IN VAGUELY

DATED

MONUMENTS

The

monastery

of

Daphni/Dhafni

in

Attica was enclosed

within a

free-standing

wall,

about

100oo square,

which

perhaps

originated

in

the

fifth or sixth

century;

it

stands

almost

complete

on

the north.

It is backed

by

a

continuous

arcade over

buttressing

piers,

which are

I'4

m

wide;

the arches,

3

m wide and about

50

cm

deep, carry

a

protruding

parapet.

Towers

project

outwards,

and some of the

larger

were

pierced

to serve as entrances.

(G.

Millet,

La Monastere

de

Daphni (1899);

A.

Orlandos,

Archeion

5n

Byz.

Mnimeiln

is

Ellados

2

(1955-6)

68,

including

a

newly

discovered

entrance;

Courtauld.)

Procopius

records

the

bare

fact that

some monasteries

inside

walled

towns

in Africa

were

built or rebuilt as fortresses.

Actually

more than

half

the

perimeter

of

an

early monastery

inside

Theveste/Tebessa

was

enclosed,

probably

in

the sixth

century,

by

the

addition

of a

wall

backed with blind

arcading,

the

remainder

being

adequately

safeguarded by

the

height

of

buildings.

The arcades were consolidated

by

little

rectangular

towers

or

turrets,

of

solely

inward

projection.

(Diehl,

L'Afrique

byz.

(1896)

430

pl.

xi.)

An underground passage could maintain communication with the countryside at a

small

town near

Arif in

Lycia

(AS

31

(1981)

199).

The

wall,

of

extremely

simple

design

with

a

few

rectangular

towers,

is ascribed to

the

sixth

century (Harrison

and

Lawson,

Yayla

2

(1979)

13)-

A

fort

at

Mezek,

in

the

extreme

south of

Bulgaria,

not

far from

Adrianople,

was so

large

that it

probably

needed

all

the

peasant

militia of the district

to man

it and could have formed

a

refuge

for

their

dependants.

Pottery

found within resembles

that

in

a

neighbouring

defenceless

village,

of

some such

period

as the

eighth

or

ninth

century

(Velkov, BIABulg

ii

(I937)

120,

and

Annuaire

Mus.

Nat.

Plovdiv (1950)

174,

(in French)

183).

The rubble

wall,

1i90-2'50

m

thick,

encloses a

steep-edged plateau

and

may

have been

about

6

m

high.

Salients were

unevenly

distributed,

to suit the

terrain;

all

are

rounded,

varying

from

a

semicircle to

nearly

a complete circle, and were in two cases solid, while five contained an upper storey with

embrasures

to

slits,

and one at a corner rose

two

storeys

(both

with

slits)

above the blind

ground

floor

and

basement

(Rasenov, BIABulg

I

(1937)

17I).

An

alternation of blind

arcading

and

tall

buildings

continued

to be the favourite method

of

fortifying

the

perimeter

of

monasteries

that had

originally

been defenceless. Those

on

Mt.

Latmus

were

so

treated,

probably

no

earlier

than

I176,

against

Seljuk

raids,

rather

than at

the first threat of

Muslim attacks

(as

was

presumed

in

their

publication,

Milet iii

I).

A

castle with concentric

defences stood behind the beach nearest to

Paphos

until

an

earthquake

destroyed

it

in

1222;

the

ruins are called SarandaKolones

'Forty

Columns')

because

of the

many

Roman shafts

that

were laid

flat

as stretchers.

Part of

the site

had

been

occupied

by

a

glass factory

in

the ninth

century,

and that

fact

gives

the

only

reliable terminus

ostquem;

a

'fort'

in

which

a man

was held

prisoner

about

I

I60

could have been elsewhere

in

the

extensive area of

Paphos.

The site

is an

artificially

isolated outlier of

the coastal

plateau,

roughly square.

The curtains of

the outer defences revetted

the

scarped

rock,

from

which

towers

projected

free-standing;

they

are of all the

shapes

accepted by Byzantine

tradition,

as

surely implies

that the master mason

was a

Greek,

whoever his

employer

may

have been.

(The empire

lost

Cyprus

in

I I84

to a rebel

official,

who was

deposed

after

eight years by

Richard

Cceur de

Lion,

and the

Lusignan dynasty

took over from

I193.)

The

outer

entrance

was situated

at

the north-west

corner,

where the ditch was narrowest and

may

have been

bridged;

a

corridor led

thence between the outer

and the inner

defences,

and turned inward

through

a wide

arch

of

Romanesque

voussoirs,

after

passing half-way

round

the

perimeter.








A


FORTIFICATION

227

The

rest

of the inner

line

is

in

very

poor

condition,

but includesno

specifically

Byzantine

features.

Megaw,

RDAC

1982

210.)

A

tower

had

become

a

habitual

component

of

monasteries

ong

before he

ninth

century,

when the

Copts

in

the

Wadi Natrun are known to

have

separated

t in

some instances

by

a removablebridge, high aboveground.No one Orthodox s likelyto have seenthese but

the

conceptprobably

was

widespread.

The

subsequent

evelopment

f monastic

owers

began

slowly

and did not reach its acme

till

the thirteenthand

fourteenth

enturies,

on

Athos and

(for

a

Bulgar

patron

in

1335)

at Rila.

But

these are fine architectural

works,

with

little

relevance

o the

history

of

fortification.

ADDENDA

Page174:Mr.R. P.Harperhaskindly entmeanoffprint f hisarticlen Vortrdgeesio. Internat.

Limeskongresses

1977)

453,

with

a

contoured

plan

of

Pagnik

Oreni

and its

setting.

Page

197:

The

same article

describes

(p.

457

fig.

2)

the

town

wall

at

Dibsi

Farij,

where

Diocletian's owers

were

replaced

by larger ustinianic

owers

at

longer

ntervals.

Page

21o:

The

printing

of Fikri's

bookwas

completed

n AH

I340,

AD

1921

2.

I

disagree

with

prevalent

heories

hat the

fortresses

t

Serres

and Platamon

are

Byzantine:

I

believeSerres

o be

Turkish,

probably

a

workof Murad

I

(136o-89),

and saw

no

Byzantine

featuresat

Platamon,

on which

I

spent

three

days;

ts inner

building

seems

to me

definitely

Turkish

and

not

particularly

arly

at

that.

A.W.L.








(a)

(b)

A

SKELETAL

HISTORY

OF

BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

(a)

Perga.

Back

of

added

tower;

(b)

Corycus.

Mouth

of

ditch

and

SE.

tower








PLATE 10

B.S.A. 78

(a)

(b)

A

SKELETAL


(a) Corycus.

Path

outside

N.

tower;

(b) Corycus.

N.

tower;

steps

of

path

to

right








:I:-::

-_%:F_

(a)

(b)

(c)

A

SKELETAL

HISTORY

OF

BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

(a)

Nicopolis.

W.

side

to

tower

flanking

entrance;

(b)

Nicopolis.

W.

side;

attachment

of

lost

tower

flanking

entrance

and

postern;

(c)

Nicopolis.

W.

side,

interior

of

tower

flanking

entrance








PLATE

12

B.S.A.

78

(a)

(b)

A SKELETAL

HISTORY OF BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

(a) Nicopolis.

W.

side,

exterior

of

flanking

tower and

entrance;

(b)

Nicopolis.

W.

side,

back of

entrance and

lights

of

passage

to

portcullis

room








B.S.A. 78 PLATE 15

(a)

(b)

(c)

A

SKELETAL


(a)

Terracina.

Flank

of

tower;

(b)

Ankara. Outer

gateway

of

barbican;

(c)

Telmessus.

Seaward

(W.)

frontage








PLATE

18

B.S.A.

78

(a)

(b)

A


(a) Qal'at

Sim'an. S. face

of

middle

ward;

(b) Qal'at

Sim'an.

Rock-cut S. wall and SE. tower








B.S.A.

78

PLATE

19

(a)

(b)


(a) Qal'at Sim'an.

Corridor

to

beacon;

(b) Sahyun. Byzantine

curtain

and tower








PLATE

20

B.S.A.

78

(a)

(b)

(C)

A

SKELETAL


(a)

Ohrid.

Entrance;

(b)

St.

Hilarion. Tower '18'

seen

from

barbican;

(c)

St. Hilarion.

Tower

'18'

seen from

'19'






A Skeletal History of Byzantine Fortification a. W. Lawrence

Documents

Transcript of A Skeletal History of Byzantine Fortification a. W. Lawrence