• 1 My thanks to Niall Christie for his thoroughness, careful proofreading and valuable comments.

1The military exploits of the Mamluks, especially those against the Mongols, form the origin of their prestige and their image as paragons of medieval Muslim warriors. Analysis of Arabic, Latin and Armenian sources from the 13th–14th centuries confirms the level of excellence in the conduct of war that the Mamluks of the Bahri period achieved on the battlefields. This stereotype of the outstanding Mamluk horsemen often makes us forget that they were also masters of the art of siege warfare. Indeed, thanks to their expertise in poliorcetics the Mamluks succeeded in putting an end to the Frankish presence on the coast in about thirty years, and in conquering the strongholds of the kingdom of Armenia. Such a feat confirms the Mamluk army’s excellence in the art of siege warfare. The speed with which the Mamluks conquered all the Frankish strongholds (in a little less than three decades from 663/1265 to 690/1291) attests to their high level of mastery of siege‑craft, something that is confirmed explicitly by Hethum of Korikos (d. 1310):

• 3 Nicolle, 2003.
• 4 Fulton, 2015, p. 72.
• 5 Kennedy, 1994, pp. 108–109; Fulton, 2015, pp. 67, 72.
• 6 Raphael, Tepper 2005, pp. 85–100; Desideri, 2019, pp. 23–48; Heidemann et al., 2022, pp. 239–254. S (...)
• 7 Fulton, 2018, p. 299, 411; 2019, pp. 707–713.

3Over the last two decades, several researchers have focused on various aspects of Mamluk poliorcetics, in particular artillery and logistics, bit it has still remained an under-explored field of study until now. David Nicolle’s illustrated booklet is original enough to be mentioned here.3 For Michael S. Fulton, the Mamluks designed a system of manǧāniqs composed of prefabricated parts that had to be assembled and mounted.4 This system had already been in use under the Ayyubids since the end of the 6th/12th century and was, in a way, institutionalised by the Mamluks, who gave it a quasi-industrial character, particularly during the reign of Baybars (r. 658–676/1260–1277), as Hugh Kennedy noted before the publication of Fulton’s work in his Crusader Castles.5 In addition to siege machines, projectiles have also drawn scholars’ attention. The compelling results of the archaeological work carried out by Kate Raphael and Yotam Tepper, that of Andrea Vanni Desideri as well as the more recent work of Stefan Heidemann, David Nicolle and Oren Tal, make a substantial contribution to the state of knowledge of the types of stones and other projectiles used by the Mamluk army.6 More recently, in his landmark book Artillery in the Era of the Crusades, Michael Fulton has highlighted, through the crossing of narrative sources, archaeology and physics, the false image of trebuchets seen in the imagination as super-weapons capable of breaching the walls of fortresses.7

• 8 On furūsiyya literature see al‑Sarraf, 2002, pp. 67–72; 2004, pp. 141–200; Carayon, 2012; Zouache, (...)
• 9 Zouache, 2015, p. 84.

5Our analysis is based on the comparison of Mamluk chronicles and didactic sources, in particular war manuals and furūsiyya treatises.8 The latter two, such as the Kitāb al‑furūsiyya wa al‑manāṣib al‑ḥarbiyya by Naǧm al‑Dīn Ḥassan al‑Rammāḥ (d. 695/1296) and the Anīq fī-l-manāǧanīq by Ibn Zaradkāš (d. 9th/15th), offer a wealth of information on the various devices and instruments used during Mamluk sieges. Paradoxically, as Abbès Zouache has pointed out, this category of sources has been little used by researchers studying medieval warfare.9

• 10 According to Ibn Mankalī, the Byzantines had the most powerful manǧanīqs. Ibn Mankalī, al‑Adilla al(...)
• 11 Kennedy, 1994, pp. 108–109; Fulton, 2018, pp. 245–283.
• 12 al-Rašīdī, Tafrīǧ al-kurūb, p. 113.

7The term most often used in Arabic sources to designate siege artillery is that of manǧanīq or minjanīq (pl. manāǧanīq, manǧanīqāt or manāǧīq), itself derived from the Greek manganon and manganikon (which gave us “mangonel”) literally meaning “war machine.”10 The Mamluk art of the siege differed from that of their predecessors, the Ayyubids, in two ways: the efficiency of their artillery and the large number of siege engines they used. Unquestionably, Baybars (d. 676/1277) was the Mamluk sultan who used artillery most effectively.11 There is no need to demonstrate the importance of artillery in siege warfare in the medieval period. As the only firepower capable of overcoming the fortifications of a stronghold, siege engines, in addition to the material and physical damage they caused, also had a great psychological effect. Some masters of war advised that the construction of these destructive devices should be made visible to the besieged to terrorise them even before the bombardment.12

• 13 Hill, “Mandjanīḳ”, EI², 1991, p. 405.

8Sometimes we find ālāt al‑ḥiṣār (siege machines) or even simply ālāt (machines) used in the Arabic sources. In these, the generic term manǧanīq refers to any machine used in poliorcetics (fann al‑ḥiṣār) whether it be the mangonel, the trebuchet, the tower crossbow, the ballista or any other device capable of throwing different types of projectiles, rather than just stones, as explained by Donald R. Hill.13 To avoid confusion, we will use the term manǧanīq instead of translating it.

• 14 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al‑Rawḍ al‑zāhir, p. 230; Ibn ʿAbd al‑Ẓāhir, Tašrīf al‑ayyām, p. 78; al‑Yūnīnī, (...)
• 15 Among the many studies: Chevedden, 1996, pp. 47–94; 1998, pp. 179–222; 2000, pp. 71–116; Nicolle, 2 (...)

9Mamluk-era narrative and didactic sources describe various types of manǧanīq used by the Mamluks in their siege warfare against the Franks and Armenians. Often, Arabic chronicles distinguish between two categories of manǧanīq: manǧanīq al‑kibār (counterweight trebuchets) and manǧanīq al‑siġār (traction trebuchets). Sometimes they specify the name and type of a manǧanīq: maġribī, ifranǧī or franǧī, šayṭānī, luʿba (pl. luʿab) or qarābuġrā.14 The operation and characteristics of these types of trebuchet have been the subject of several works over the last three decades.15 However, it is still necessary to provide here some additional information on the types of manǧanīq that were used by the Mamluk army.

• 16 Fulton, 2018, p. 257.
• 17 For an example of a projectile from Mamluk artillery see Heidemann et al., 2022, pp. 239–254; Fulto (...)

10Let us begin with the two manǧanīqs most often cited in the sources: the maġribī and the franǧī or ifranǧī. As Michael Fulton pointed out, it seems there is a confusion in the use of these two terms in the narrative sources.16 Al‑manǧanīq al‑maġribī was distinguished from the earlier version of the trebuchet by its hinged counterweight (sundūq kāmil) suspended from the end of the trebuchet arm (fig. 1 and 2). In the structure of the earlier mangonel, the counterweight was fixed and tipped together with the arm when thrown, whereas in the maġribī trebuchet it was hinged on the arm so that when the arm tipped, the vertical position of the counterweight was maintained. This latter device therefore enabled the trebuchet to throw projectiles while avoiding an irregular and abrupt movement of the charge, which caused jolts during the rotation of the arm, thus affecting the accuracy of the shot.17

• 18 For P. Chevedden (2004, p. 231), the name may reflect an improvement in the design of the machine.
• 19 On this topic see Chevedden, 1996, pp. 47–94; 1998, pp. 179–222; 2000, pp. 71–116; Nicolle, 2004, p (...)
• 20 Hill, “Mandjanīḳ”, EI², 1991, p. 406.
• 21 Nicolle, 2004, pp. 269–270.
• 22 Fulton, 2018, p. 32.
• 23 Cahen, 1975, p. 119.

11As for the origin of the name al-maġribī (Western, coming from the West), this is still uncertain.18 The established presence of the counterweight trebuchet in Mediterranean Christendom and the Muslim West in the late 6th/12th century–early 7th/13th century,19 as well as the first mention of the use of a manǧanīq maġribī in the Near East during the siege of Homs in 646/1248,20 suggests that this device was disseminated in the Near East from North Africa. The issue of the first use of the counterweight trebuchet is the subject of debate among scholars. According to Paul Chevedden, the origins of the counterweight trebuchet are to be found in the Byzantine 11th century. David Nicolle has claimed to have found little evidence of the use of a machine similar to a trebuchet in the description of the siege of the city of Tarsus in Cilicia by Byzantine forces in 353–354/965.21 Nevertheless, both hypotheses are poorly established according to Michael Fulton because they are based on exceptional anecdotes that clearly contain exaggerations.22 In any case, as Claude Cahen earlier pointed out, it seems that counterweighted siege engines far more powerful than the torsion engines of Antiquity or the tension engines of the Middle Ages were an Eastern invention.23

• 24 Al-Ṭarsūsī also calls it al-manǧanīq al‑rūmī. Al‑Ṭarsūsī, Tabṣira, p. 167.
• 25 Also called, but more rarely, al‑manǧanīq al‑miqlāʿī. Ibn Urunbuġā al‑Zaradkāš, al‑Anīq fī‑l‑manāǧa (...)
• 26 Chevedden, 2004, p. 232.
• 27 Al-Ṭarsūsī gives a different description. Al‑Ṭarsūsī, Tabṣira, pp. 167–168.

12As for al-manǧanīq al‑franǧī or ifranǧī (Frankish),24 there is no room for doubt as to its European origin.25 Al‑manǧanīq al‑franǧī is in fact the Arabic name given to the trebuchet called the bricola, which appeared in the Christian West at the end of the 6th/12th century. Emperor Frederick II sent several bricolas to the Holy Land in the years 637–638/1240, and later the Mamluks incorporated it into their siege artillery.26 Two illustrations by Ibn Urunbuġā al‑Zaradkāš in his al‑Anīq fī‑l‑manāǧanīq, the most important treatise on manǧanīqs dating from the Mamluk period, provide a better understanding of the components and functioning of this siege engine. In addition to its cross-shaped base (qawāʿid ṣalīb), al‑manǧanīq al‑franǧī or ifranǧī differed from al-manǧanīq al-maġribī in its mobility, since its swivelling shaft allowed it to be fired in any direction, as well as in the presence of two counterweights (sundūq kāmil) on either side of the arm (fig. 3a and 3b).27

• 28 “The demonic”. P. Chevedden has spotted the misreading in both editions of the treatise (an error a (...)
• 29 Al-Ṭarsūsī, Tabṣira, pp. 169–170.
• 30 For more information, see Cahen, “ʿArrāda”, EI², 1960, p. 679. See al‑Harawī, al‑Tadkira, p. 17.
• 31 Qarābuġrā meaning “black camel”. However, the majority of authors use the term qarābuġā “black bull (...)
• 32 Chevedden, 2004, p. 254; Nicolle, 2003, p. 15.
• 33 Khamisy, Fulton, 2016, pp. 182–184, 193, 200.

14The other types of manǧanīq, al‑šayṭānī,28 al‑luʿba29 (pl. al‑luʿab, also called al‑ʿarrāda)30 and qarābuġrā or qarābuġā,31 appear to have been smaller in size. The first two were traction devices,32 of lesser range and power than the counterweighted trebuchets that were al‑manǧanīq al‑maġribī and al‑ifranǧī.33 Information about the qarābuġrā/qarābuġā to which we will return in detail below, is not so readily available.

• 34 François Amadi, Chroniques d’Amadi, p. 120; Les Gestes des Chiprois, p. 244.
• 35 Chevedden, 2004, p. 254; Fulton, 2015, p. 66; 2018, pp. 287, 292, 411.

15Analysing the illustrations of Ibn Urunbuġā al‑Zaradkāš, we see that the šayṭānī model was quite similar to the ifranǧī structurally, with a cross‑shaped base and bifurcation of the arm; the only notable difference seems to have been the presence of ropes on each side of the arm (for traction) instead of counterweights (fig. 4a and 4b). According to the chronicles of Amadi and the Templar of Tyre,34 the šayṭānī’s main use was to neutralise defenders perched on top of the ramparts while the traction trebuchets bombarded the walls and thus facilitated the work of the sappers who tried to undermine their foundations.35

• 36 Marshall, 1996, p. 214.
• 37 Ibn Urunbuġā al‑Zaradkāš, al‑Anīq fī‑l‑manāǧanīq, pp. 45–46.
• 38 Ibn Urunbuġā al‑Zaradkāš, al‑Anīq fī‑l‑manāǧanīq, pp. 45–46.
• 39 Chevedden, 2004, pp. 235–237.

16The functioning of the qarābuġrā has been the subject of controversy. Without really having definitively researched the subject, Christian Marshall considers this machine to be a kind of “hand‑sling.”36 Paul Chevedden builds on this explanation, stating that the qarābuġrā was part of the Mamluk heavy artillery and consisted of a sort of giant crossbow capable of projecting large bolts.37 This hypothesis seems to correspond to Ibn Urunbuġā al‑Zaradkāš’s description38 of the qarābuġrā, which Paul Chevedden cites to corroborate his statements.39

• 40 Chevedden, 2004, pp. 248–250.
• 41 Khamisy, Fulton, 2016, pp. 196–198, 200.
• 42 Khamisy, Fulton, 2016, pp. 198–199.

17According to Paul Chevedden, the qarābuġrās were used to set fire to the protective screens that the besieged Franks placed in front of the walls of their fortifications to lessen the impact of bombardments.40 For Rabei G. Khamisy and Michael S. Fulton, the nature and functioning of the qarābuġrā were quite different from Paul Chevedden’s ideas: on the one hand the qarābuġrā was not a counterweighted but rather a traction trebuchet much smaller and more powerful than the manǧanīq al‑maġribī and al‑ifranǧī. On the other hand, the hybridity of the machine seems to have been exaggerated; as a traction machine it could only throw stones and not arrows.41 In general, both authors are sceptical about the existence of large crossbow-like devices in the Mamluk period. They consider illustrations of such machines, which are over a century old, to be only the fruit of the imaginations of the authors; such illustrations can also be found made by several European artists of the same period,42 during the Renaissance.

• 43 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, Tašrīf al‑ayyām, p. 78; al‑Yūnīnī, Dayl mir’āt al‑zamān V, p. 111; al‑Nuwayrī, N (...)

18By grouping and cross-checking the accounts of Mamluk sources that offer more realistic figures, we see that twenty‑six qarābuġrās were erected in four sieges over a period of seven years (Marqab, Tripoli, Acre and Qalʿat al‑Rūm).43 This data strongly attests to the importance of this machine in the Mamluk military arsenal and its frequent use during sieges.

• 44 Barber, Bate, 2010, p. 165.

19The fact that the qarābuġrās were more numerous than the manǧanīq al‑maġribī and al‑ifranǧī suggests that the former device was smaller and had less firepower than the other two. From this it can be deduced that the qarābuġrā was probably intended to be more of a  pull-through trebuchet than a counterweight one, like the manǧanīq al‑šayṭānī, but with a far from negligible capacity for harm. In his letter to Guillaume de Villaret (d. 1305) after the fall of Acre, Jean de Villiers (d. 1294) states that the Mamluk army had managed to breach the city’s fortifications with the use of corobonares (qarābuġrās).44 Similarly, Paul Chevedden’s idea of the hybridity of the qarābuġrā seems a little too complex: why waste time, in the midst of a siege, modifying the operation of a machine to project large tiles when other machines were built specifically for this purpose? This question leads to two others: did machines projecting giant arrows exist, and were they used? We will return to this.

• 45 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, Tašrīf al-ayyām, pp. 149–150.

21In Ṣafar 686/March 1287 a manǧanīq called Qušmur was brought from Damascus for the siege of Ṣayḥūn, during which the rebel Sunqur al‑Ašqar (d. 691/1292) was entrenched. Ibn ʿAbd al‑Ẓāhir (d. 692/1293) reports that the Qušmur manǧanīq destroyed three large manǧanīqs of the franǧī type that defended the stronghold, which give us some idea of the power and accuracy of the device. At the same time, during the siege another large manǧaniq belonging to the sultan, but for which we have no name, arrived from Damascus and was mounted.45 A passage from the account of the siege of Acre in the Chronicle of the Templar of Tyre is striking:

• 49 Abū al-Fidāʾ, al‑Muḫtaṣar II, t. 4, p. 91.
• 50 Khamisy, Fulton, 2016, p. 197.

24Let us now attempt to address the issue raised earlier: did the Mamluk artillery of the 7th/13th–early 8th/14th centuries include a class of manǧanīqs capable of propelling spiked projectiles? In his Anīq fī al‑manāǧanīq, Ibn Urunbuġā al‑Zaradkāš documents illustrations of different kinds: qaws al‑ʿaqqār (fig. 5a and 5b), qaws al‑ziyār (fig. 6), and kaskanǧīl (fig. 7a and 7b; fig. 8) According to these illustrations, these devices, called “tower crossbows” in the medieval West, were mechanically reloaded in a manner similar to that of the ballista, especially al‑kaskanǧīl.49 As mentioned, R. G. Khamisy and M.S. Fulton do not agree with P. Chevedden’s idea of a real use by the Mamluks of giant‑arrow‑throwing devices such as those illustrated in much later didactic treatises, including Ibn Urunbuġā al‑Zaradkāš’s Anīq fī al‑manāǧanīq.50

• 51 Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Taʿrīf bi‑l‑muṣṭalaḥ al‑šarīf, pp. 271–272.
• 52 وعمل كرمون أغا منجنيقًا بسبعة سهام أثر أثرًا حسنًا Ibn ʿAbd al‑Ẓāhir, al‑Rawḍ al‑zāhir, p. 238.
• 53 Sahm, pl. ashum and sihām.
• 54 Khamisy, Fulton, 2016, p. 199.
• 55 Al-Ṭarsūsī, Tabṣira arbāb, pp. 118–119, 123. Al-Hawarī also quotes al‑qaws al‑ziyār. Al-Harawī, al‑(...)

25As the latter work probably dates from the 9th/15th century, it is legitimate to question the existence of these machines and their use in the first half of the Bahri period. However, careful examination of the sources confirms the existence and use of what can be likened to large, mechanised crossbows. At the outset, it should be noted that the qaws al‑ziyār and the kaskanǧīl are already mentioned by Mamluk authors of the 8th/14th century like Ibn Faḍl Allāh al‑ʿUmarī (d. 749/1349) in his Taʿrīf bi‑l‑muṣṭalaḥ al‑šarīf.51 Let us analyse this further. Ibn ʿAbd al‑Ẓāhir reports that during the 663/1265 siege of Arsūf a certain Kurmūn Aghā used a manǧanīq with which he threw seven arrows (at once?) causing damage to the enemy.52 For Rabei G. Khamisy and Michael S. Fulton the term sihām53 here does not refer to tiles but rather to the sort of spars of the manǧanīq.54 Even if one were to accept this interpretation as correct, other information from the sources corroborates the existence and use of large mechanised crossbows. The hypothesis of Rabei G. Khamisy and Michael S. Fulton is that the illustrations in the Anīq fī al‑manāǧanīq are too late in date to corroborate the hypothesis of their use in practice. Yet, Marḍī b. ʿAlī al‑Ṭarsūsī in his Tabṣīra, dated to the late 6th/12th century, had already mentioned and described the operation of such devices as, among others, qaws al‑ʿaqqār and qaws al‑ziyār.55

• 56 Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis, p. 112.
• 57 Naǧm al-Dīn Ḥasan al-Rammāḥ, al‑Furūsiyya, 1998, pp. 103–104, 113.

26Joinville also reports that during the Seventh Crusade, Ayyubid troops bombarded Louis IX’s army with barrels containing wildfire, which they “lancerent quatre foiz à l’arbalestre a tour.”56 Having also lived through the early decades of the Bahri Mamluk period, the master spearman Naǧm al‑Dīn al‑Rammāḥ describes and illustrates in his treatise large devices capable of projecting flaming iron spikes.57

• 63 Ibn Aybak al‑Dawādārī, Kanz al-durar IX, p. 262. On the siege of al‑Raḥba in 712/1312–1313, see Rap (...)

28This type of mechanical crossbow seems to have been used by the Mongols as well as the rest of Ibn Aybak al‑Dawādārī’s account attests; during the siege of al‑Raḥba, one of these projectiles killed a woman and her infant whom she was holding in her arms while she was cooking at home.63

• 64 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al‑Rawḍ al‑zāhir, p. 297.
• 65 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al‑Rawḍ al‑zāhir, p. 78.
• 66 Ibn Aybak al-Dawādārī, Kanz al‑durar VIII, p. 283; Ibn Katīr, al‑Bidāya XVII, p. 616.
• 67 Ibn al-Ǧazarī and Ibn Aybak al‑Dawādārī state that there were fourteen šayṭāniyya and qarābuġrā and (...)
• 68 Al-Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab XXXI, p. 143. Badr al‑Dīn al‑ʿAynī quotes the number of twenty three ma (...)
• 69 Ibn al-Ǧazarī, Ḥawādit al‑zamān I, p. 45; Ibn al‑Furāt quoted by al‑ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-ǧumān III, p. 58 (...)
• 70 The number ninety‑two is cited by al‑Nuwayrī, Ibn al‑Furāt and al‑Maqrīzī.
• 71 Chevedden, 2004, p. 245; Khamisy, Fulton, 2016, pp. 185–186.
• 72 Khamisy, Fulton, 2016, pp. 185–186.

30In addition to powerful, sophisticated and varied artillery, the Mamluk army was famed for its ability to line up a large number of these devices during sieges. In Rajab 666/March-April 1268 twenty six manǧanīqs were erected in front of Šaqīf;64 in front of Marqab in 684/1285, three large manǧanīq ifranǧiyya, three qarābuġrās and four šayṭāniyyas;65 in 688/1289 at Tripoli nineteen: six ifranǧiyya and thirteen qarābuġrās;66 between fifteen67 and twenty in Qalʿāt al‑Rūm, among which were five ifranǧiyya and fifteen šayṭāniyyas and qarābuġrās.68 The largest concentration of manǧanīqs by the Mamluks took place during the siege of Acre, with seventy‑two machines mounted,69 though some authors mention the even‑greater figure of ninety‑two.70 The number of manǧanīqs present at Acre has been the subject of debate among scholars. Paul Chevedden considers the number seventy‑two to be the closest to reality, while Rabei G. Khamisy and Michael S. Fulton consider the number ninety‑two to be more correct.71The latter two point to a hypothetical copyist’s error having confused72 اثنين وتسعون with اثنين وسبعون.

• 73 Fulton 2018, pp. 287, 292, 411.
• 74 Fulton 2018, pp. 299, 408, 411.

32As this review of the sources has shown, the Mamluk army developed a heavy, sophisticated, diversified and effective siege artillery. The Mamluk army was able to field several types of trebuchets with different characteristics. The manǧanīq al‑ifranǧī and manǧanīq al‑maġribī seem to have been more imposing and less numerous than those called manǧanīq al‑šayṭānī or qarābuġrā. As Michael Fulton suggests, the Mamluk army’s light artillery consisting of traction trebuchets had a supporting role to the sappers. Hence their greater number compared to the counterweight trebuchets that made up the heavy artillery.73 In addition, the analysis of the sources highlights that other types of manǧanīqs, which we call special manǧaniqs, of larger size and with greater firepower could be erected by the army. A close reading of Mamluk chronicles and didactic treatises corroborates the hypothesis of the existence and use by the Mamluk army of large, mechanised crossbows/ballistae firing spiked projectiles alongside the more traditional stone-throwing manǧanīqs. In addition to its variety of siege engines, the Mamluk artillery, in comparison to that of its Ayyubid predecessors, was characterised by its large number of machines, which could reach several dozen during a single siege. It would be difficult not to admit that the sophistication, throwing power—not allowing for the possibility of breaching—74 efficiency and number of siege engines were fundamental elements in Mamluk poliorcetics and decisive in the Mamluks’ success against Frankish and Armenian fortresses. However, artillery alone cannot explain them.

• 75 For an analysis of the sieges of Frankish fortresses by the Mamluk army see Fulton, 2018, pp. 244–3 (...)

33Indeed, other elements must be taken into account to understand the effectiveness of the Mamluk army in the art of siege warfare: its high level of competence in the field and the speed of its sieges. The sources describe in detail the role of specialised corps such as experienced engineers and sappers; the extensive logistics that accompanied the army; their subterfuges and the different phases of the siege.75 The analysis of these elements in the light of chronicle accounts, especially those of authors who took part in sieges, and war manuals, will undoubtedly contribute further to our knowledge of the mechanisms of the Mamluk art of the siege, which was probably one of the most expert in the medieval world, and to a better understanding of the reasons for the Mamluks’ successes against their Frankish and Armenian enemies.