Formed in 2009, the Archive Team (not to be confused with the archive.org Archive-It Team) is a rogue archivist collective dedicated to saving copies of rapidly dying or deleted websites for the sake of history and digital heritage. The group is 100% composed of volunteers and interested parties, and has expanded into a large amount of related projects for saving online and digital history.
Michael S Fulton
Western University Canada, History, Faculty Member
- Cardiff University, Cardiff School of History, Archaeology and Religion, AlumnusLangara College, History, Latin and Political Science, Faculty Member, and 3 moreadd
- Crusader Archaeology, Medieval Archaeology, Medieval History, Medieval Fortifications, Crusades, Castles, and 12 moreDomus Fortis, Fortifications, Arms and Armour, Medieval Warfare, Military Architecture, Castle Studies, Crusades and the Latin East, Medieval castles, Ayyubid history, Mamluk Studies, Siege Warfare, and Military Historyedit
- I am a historian and archaeologist of the crusade period. Most of my research relates to the history and material evi... moreI am a historian and archaeologist of the crusade period. Most of my research relates to the history and material evidence of conflict in Europe and the Middle East during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Much of my work to date has examined the development of siege technologies, their influence on the evolution of medieval siege warfare and fortification designs, and the cultural consequences of this. My current research deals with the struggle for control of Egypt in the 1160s and 1170s, and the significance of al-Karak during the Frankish through Mamluk periods.edit
For about a decade, Amalric, the crusader king of Jerusalem, Nur al-Din, the Turkic ruler of Damascus and Aleppo, and Shawar, the vizier of Fatimid Egypt, would vie for control over one of the wealthiest regions around the Mediterranean.... more
For about a decade, Amalric, the crusader king of Jerusalem, Nur al-Din, the Turkic ruler of Damascus and Aleppo, and Shawar, the vizier of Fatimid Egypt, would vie for control over one of the wealthiest regions around the Mediterranean. In the end, it was Saladin, the nephew of one of Nur al-Din’s commanders, who would emerge as the last man standing. Contest for Egypt is the first modern study devoted exclusively to this tripartite struggle for influence. Readers are introduced to the background and aftermath, while focus is placed on examining the central actions, motives and ambitions that shaped events between 1164 and 1174.
Research Interests:
Sieges played a key role in the crusades, but they tend to be overshadowed by the famous battles fought between the Franks and the Muslims, and no detailed study of the subject has been published in recent times. So Michael Fulton’s... more
Sieges played a key role in the crusades, but they tend to be overshadowed by the famous battles fought between the Franks and the Muslims, and no detailed study of the subject has been published in recent times. So Michael Fulton’s graphic, wide-ranging and thought-provoking book is a landmark in the field.
He considers the history of siege warfare in the Holy Land from every angle – the tactics and technology, the fortifications, the composition of the opposing armies, and the ways in which sieges shaped Frankish and Muslim strategy at each stage of the conflict. The differences and similarities between the Eastern and Western traditions are explored, as is the impact of the shifting balance of power in the region.
The conclusions may surprise some readers. Neither the Muslims nor the Franks possessed a marked advantage in siege technology or tactics, their fortifications reflected different purposes and an evolving political environment and, although there were improvements in technologies and fortifications, the essence of siege warfare remained relatively consistent.
Michael Fulton’s book is a fascinating all-round reassessment of an aspect of the crusades that had a decisive impact on the outcome of the struggle. It will be essential reading for medieval and military historians.
He considers the history of siege warfare in the Holy Land from every angle – the tactics and technology, the fortifications, the composition of the opposing armies, and the ways in which sieges shaped Frankish and Muslim strategy at each stage of the conflict. The differences and similarities between the Eastern and Western traditions are explored, as is the impact of the shifting balance of power in the region.
The conclusions may surprise some readers. Neither the Muslims nor the Franks possessed a marked advantage in siege technology or tactics, their fortifications reflected different purposes and an evolving political environment and, although there were improvements in technologies and fortifications, the essence of siege warfare remained relatively consistent.
Michael Fulton’s book is a fascinating all-round reassessment of an aspect of the crusades that had a decisive impact on the outcome of the struggle. It will be essential reading for medieval and military historians.
Research Interests:
Artillery in the Era of the Crusades provides a detailed examination of the use of mechanical artillery in the Levant through the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Rather than focus on a selection of sensational anecdotes, Michael S.... more
Artillery in the Era of the Crusades provides a detailed examination of the use of mechanical artillery in the Levant through the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Rather than focus on a selection of sensational anecdotes, Michael S. Fulton explores the full scope of the available literary and archaeological evidence, reinterpreting the development of trebuchet technology and the ways in which it was used during this period. Among the arguments put forward, Fulton challenges the popular perception that the invention of the counterweight trebuchet was responsible for the dramatic transformation in the design of fortifications around the start of the thirteenth century.
Research Interests:
The three-way contest for control of Egypt during the 1160s saw Fatimid, Frankish and Zankid forces clash along the Nile. By taking a close look at the campaign of 1168, the fourth and most puzzling of Amalric’s five invasions of Egypt as... more
The three-way contest for control of Egypt during the 1160s saw Fatimid, Frankish and Zankid forces clash along the Nile. By taking a close look at the campaign of 1168, the fourth and most puzzling of Amalric’s five invasions of Egypt as king of Jerusalem, this chapter aims to clarify Frankish intentions and objectives relating to Egypt during this period. It will be suggested that the campaign of 1168 represents a transition point, from what had been primarily a Frankish policy of extortion to one of conquest in cooperation with the Byzantines. Earlier campaigns were undertaken to defend Egyptian independence, allowing for the extraction of large tribute payments from the Fatimids, while keeping the resources of Egypt out of Nūr al-Dīn’s hands. Things changed with the conclusion of an alliance between Jerusalem and Constantinople in 1168, which hinged on a plan to jointly conquer Egypt the following year. Amalric’s actions appear to confirm that his invasion of Egypt in late 1168 was an effort to extract a final cash payment from the Fatimids, rather than an attempt to conquer Egypt independent of Greek assistance. Although the Byzantines would accuse the Franks of insincerity when Amalric expressed a desire to delay their departure for Egypt in 1169, this probably reflected reports of an uprising in Cairo and the king’s desire to see how this would play out, rather than a lack of commitment to the new objective of cooperative conquest.
Research Interests: Military History, Medieval History, Middle East History, Ayyubid history, Egyptian History, and 10 moreEgypt, Byzantine History, Islamic History, Seljuks (Islamic History), Fatimids, History of the Eastern Mediterranean, Crusades and the Latin East, Medieval Military History, Mediterranean History, and Medieval Egypt
Counterweight trebuchets were the most powerful ballistic weapons of their day, but their association with later siege guns has led to misunderstandings of their destructive capabilities. This article is an attempt to correct some... more
Counterweight trebuchets were the most powerful ballistic weapons of their day, but their association with later siege guns has led to misunderstandings of their destructive capabilities. This article is an attempt to correct some misguided ideas by providing a short overview of the power and value of mechanical artillery and contextualizing its use in the Levant during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. After addressing the origin of certain theories that these engines were far more destructive than seems to have been the reality, a brief assessment of their actual power is conducted by looking at the ways sources exaggerate the destructive capabilities of these weapons and exploring their capacity as energy systems. The notion that counterweight trebuchets were responsible for a 'revolution' in fortification design from the late twelfth century is then addressed. Building on the notion that these machines were less powerful than some have supposed, an assessment of their value is offered by exploring their relative strength, the psychological impact associated with the dangers they posed, and the prestige attached to employing such great engines.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The Latin principalities of the Levant, which were established in the aftermath of the First Crusade, enjoyed limited military support from the Norman kingdom of Sicily through most of the twelfth century. What is often noted as the... more
The Latin principalities of the Levant, which were established in the aftermath of the First Crusade, enjoyed limited military support from the Norman kingdom of Sicily through most of the twelfth century. What is often noted as the exception is the Sicilian attack on Alexandria in 1174. Typically presented as an effort to aid the Frankish principalities, the attack was reportedly planned in coordination with Amalric of Jerusalem and Shiite conspirators in Egypt. The reality, however, may have been somewhat different. Most of what we know about this episode comes from Muslim sources, and most details can be traced back to Saladin's propagandists. By inflating the threat posed to Alexandria, and Muslim Egypt by extension, Saladin added to the public image he was cultivating, one of a warrior dedicated to the fight against the invading Christians and a devout defender of Sunni Islam. By implicating the Franks of the Levant in the attack, and associating it with a Fāṭimid conspiracy that had miscarried months earlier, Saladin further enlarged the significance of its defeat. In reality, there is little to corroborate claims that the Sicilians were acting in coordination with either the kingdom of Jerusalem or Shiite dissidents in Egypt. This may have been a far more traditional raid than has previously been supposed, one similar to others conducted by Sicilian forces against neighbouring ports along the coast of the Delta.
Research Interests:
The Mamluk siege of Montfort castle provides a rare opportunity to examine one of the most celebrated but also misrepresented technologies of the Middle Ages: mechanical artillery. The castle was inhabited for only about forty-five years... more
The Mamluk siege of Montfort castle provides a rare opportunity to examine one of the most celebrated but also misrepresented technologies of the Middle Ages: mechanical artillery. The castle was inhabited for only about forty-five years before it was taken and then destroyed by the Mamluks, creating a time capsule for archaeologists to peer into life in a mid-thirteenth-century stronghold and carefully examine evidence of the siege that ultimately led to its abandonment. Among the finds are a number of artillery projectiles that date to the final siege of the castle. An investigation of the surrounding topography has revealed that there are only a couple of places from which these stones could have been thrown. This rare combination of clearly datable projectiles and a topographical environment that provides a good indication of range allows for a unique quantitative assessment of the development of trebuchet technology.
Research Interests:
The development of medieval mechanical artillery has been debated by historians for centuries. Some, seeking to explain the jump from the traction trebuchet to its larger counterweight cousin, have proposed the idea of a "hybrid"... more
The development of medieval mechanical artillery has been debated by historians for centuries. Some, seeking to explain the jump from the traction trebuchet to its larger counterweight cousin, have proposed the idea of a "hybrid" trebuchet. The suggested technology was essentially a half-way step: a large traction trebuchet that made use of a counterweight, enabling such engines to throw stones sufficiently large to threaten fortifications. Although an outwardly attractive theory, which might explain certain textual references to exceptionally large or powerful engines prior to the invention of the counterweight trebuchet, or to large crews of pullers operating traction trebuchets, the fundamental mechanics of this technology must be considered. Unlike counterweight trebuchets, which can be scaled up as far as the materials and skill involved allow, the size of a traction trebuchet is limited by its reliance on the finite distance that a person can pull a rope in a single tug. Practical mechanical issues such as this rule out the likelihood that the hybrid trebuchet was ever a historical reality. With this in mind, accounts of exceptionally large or powerful traction trebuchets can be reinterpreted.
Research Interests:
In 1188, Saladin successfully took Sahyun (Frankish Saone) after a siege lasting three days. Although two (and possibly even three) eyewitness accounts of the siege have survived, it is still unclear how exactly the castle was taken. An... more
In 1188, Saladin successfully took Sahyun (Frankish Saone) after a siege lasting three days. Although two (and possibly even three) eyewitness accounts of the siege have survived, it is still unclear how exactly the castle was taken. An aspect of this siege that has attracted scholarly attention is the Muslims’ use of artillery. Recent interpretations of the siege have judged contemporary artillery to have been a powerful and decisive weapon, used to breach a section of the castle’s walls. However, although all three sources clearly mention that artillery damaged the defences of Saone, they appear to exaggerate its impact. When the siege is placed in a broader context, by examining the sieges of Bourzey and Shughr-Bakas in the month following the siege of Saone, as well as certain others that took place a few years before and after, it becomes apparent that even the heaviest counterweight trebuchets were not breaching weapons at this point in their development. By understanding the limited power of artillery at the end of the twelfth century, the tactics employed by Saladin in 1188 can be reassessed. Furthermore, a possible explanation for the exaggerations found in the sources is offered here.
Research Interests:
Rabei G. Khamisy and Michael S. Fulton, "Manjaniq Qarabugha and Thirteenth Century Trebuchet Nomenclature," Studia Islamica 111.2 (2016), pp. 179-201.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Fulton, Michael S. "Anglo-Norman Artillery in Narrative Histories, from the Reign of William I to the Minority of Henry III." Journal of Medieval Military History 14 (2016), pp. 1-30.
Research Interests:
As medieval mechanical artillery developed, variants of a new term for identifying the heaviest engines spread across Latin Europe. First appearing in northern Italy at the end of the twelfth century, early forms of the word ‘trebuchet’... more
As medieval mechanical artillery developed, variants of a new term for identifying the heaviest engines spread across Latin Europe. First appearing in northern Italy at the end of the twelfth century, early forms of the word ‘trebuchet’ found their way into French, German, English and crusader sources by the second decade of the thirteenth century. Although the terms appear to have been used to refer exclusively to counterweight trebuchets by the time they were adopted north of the Alps, the invention of this engine-type would appear to predate the vocabulary with which it came to be associated. Writing on the fringe of Latin Europe in the 1220s, Henry of Livonia did not employ any of these new terms in his account of the Christian campaigns in the Baltic. Whether Henry was ignorant of the new terminology or avoided it deliberately, he appears to have employed traditional terms to identify what may have been engines of this newer and heavier type. While sources appear to have used pre-existing vocabulary to refer to the earliest counterweight trebuchets in the twelfth century, some, like Henry, continued to employ such terms in the early thirteenth century, avoiding the new vocabulary embraced by others.
Research Interests:
Journal of Medieval Military History 13 (2015): 51-72.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
One of the more mysterious siege engines of t he High Middle Ages is the 'Turkish' variety of trebuchet. Vague references to Turkish perriers (or petraries) and mangonels begin to appear in English and French narrative chronicles around... more
One of the more mysterious siege engines of t he High Middle Ages is the 'Turkish' variety of trebuchet. Vague references to Turkish perriers (or petraries) and mangonels begin to appear in English and French narrative chronicles around the end of the twelfth century and can be found in administrative documents from the early thirteenth century. The nature of these engines has puzzled historians for decades. While they appear to have been a small variety of traction trebuchet, different theories over the years have associated these engines with a range of technologies, from the classical onager to a giant torsion crossbow.
Research Interests:
Medieval Warfare 7.4 (2017), pp. 40-43.
Research Interests:
Fulton, Michael S. "Mining as a Medieval Siege Tactic: The Siege of Edessa." Medieval Warfare 7.1 (2017), pp. 48-53.
Research Interests:
A recording can be found at: https://youtu.be/dWzVyIdBcmg. Presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Medieval Academy of America (University of Toronto, 2017). The sudden construction of larger and stronger fortifications in the Near... more
A recording can be found at: https://youtu.be/dWzVyIdBcmg. Presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Medieval Academy of America (University of Toronto, 2017).
The sudden construction of larger and stronger fortifications in the Near East from around the start of the thirteenth century has long attracted the interest of scholars. This medieval 'Fortification Revolution' was traditionally thought to be a product of the cross-cultural exchange of information brought about by the crusades, while more recently some have postulated that this shift was caused by the sudden development of much larger varieties of mechanical artillery. Ample consideration is rarely given to the individuals responsible for commissioning these defences and the socio-political, rather than technological, context in which they were built. While the great strongholds constructed by the Crusaders reflect an assortment of tactical and economic considerations that emerged in the wake of Saladin's conquests of 1187-91, the influence of the power struggle that broke out within the Ayyubid family following Saladin's death is readily apparent in the designs of the citadels rebuilt by the principal contenders. Rather than a response to any particular military threat, the ostentatious scale of the defences built by Saladin's brother, al-Adil, and his nephew, Saladin's son, al-Zahir Ghazi, appear to have been inspired in large part by a desire convey a sense of their power and legitimacy as the rightful head of the Ayyubid dynasty. By examining the development of the architectural elements preferred by these men, especially their use of unprecedentedly large towers, and how their fortification designs differed from those of their predecessors, this study will reveal the extent to which both men utilised obviously grand and consistent architectural forms. These were statements of authority at a time when the right to rule Saladin's empire was contested.
The sudden construction of larger and stronger fortifications in the Near East from around the start of the thirteenth century has long attracted the interest of scholars. This medieval 'Fortification Revolution' was traditionally thought to be a product of the cross-cultural exchange of information brought about by the crusades, while more recently some have postulated that this shift was caused by the sudden development of much larger varieties of mechanical artillery. Ample consideration is rarely given to the individuals responsible for commissioning these defences and the socio-political, rather than technological, context in which they were built. While the great strongholds constructed by the Crusaders reflect an assortment of tactical and economic considerations that emerged in the wake of Saladin's conquests of 1187-91, the influence of the power struggle that broke out within the Ayyubid family following Saladin's death is readily apparent in the designs of the citadels rebuilt by the principal contenders. Rather than a response to any particular military threat, the ostentatious scale of the defences built by Saladin's brother, al-Adil, and his nephew, Saladin's son, al-Zahir Ghazi, appear to have been inspired in large part by a desire convey a sense of their power and legitimacy as the rightful head of the Ayyubid dynasty. By examining the development of the architectural elements preferred by these men, especially their use of unprecedentedly large towers, and how their fortification designs differed from those of their predecessors, this study will reveal the extent to which both men utilised obviously grand and consistent architectural forms. These were statements of authority at a time when the right to rule Saladin's empire was contested.
Research Interests:
A recording of this paper is available at: https://youtu.be/bkKW2pGv1EY. Presented at The Art of Siege Warfare and Military Architecture from the Classical World to the Middle Ages (University of Haifa, 2017)
A recording is available at: https://youtu.be/I8GQmLE2xUw. Originally presented at The Archaeology of the Latin East: A Conference in Honour of Professor Denys Pringle (Cardiff University, 2016)
51st International Congress on Medieval Studies (University of Western Michigan, 2016)
4th Postgraduate Conference in Conflict Archaeology (University of Oxford, 2015)
3rd Annual SHARE Postgraduate Symposium (Cardiff University, 2015)
A recording of this talk is available on YouTube at: https://youtu.be/mgvJK2gNLX0
Research Interests:
Power of the Bishop 2: Episcopal Personalities Conference, Cardiff University, 2015.
Department of Archaeology Seminar Series, University of Haifa, 27 March 2017
Queen's University Medieval Seminar Series, 21 Jan. 2016
Research Interests:
Hostile encounters were a fundamental component of the crusades in the Latin East. Combatants strategized, confronted, and defended against their opponents, often recording their military endeavours in writing or, occasionally, within the... more
Hostile encounters were a fundamental component of the crusades in the Latin East. Combatants strategized, confronted, and defended against their opponents, often recording their military endeavours in writing or, occasionally, within the landscape itself. This virtual conference will investigate key components of conflict in the Latin East, including military strategies, physical and mental experiences of violence, as well as surviving material remains.
We are also excited to host a postgraduate panel on the final day of the conference, in association with the Northern Network for the Study of the Crusades.
We are also excited to host a postgraduate panel on the final day of the conference, in association with the Northern Network for the Study of the Crusades.
Research Interests:
3-6 Aug. 2021 (online, free). Hostile encounters were a fundamental component of the crusades in the Latin East. Combatants strategized, confronted, and defended against their opponents, often recording their military endeavours in... more
3-6 Aug. 2021 (online, free).
Hostile encounters were a fundamental component of the crusades in the Latin East. Combatants strategized, confronted, and defended against their opponents, often recording their military endeavours in writing or, occasionally, within the landscape itself. This virtual conference will investigate key components of conflict in the Latin East, including military strategies, physical and mental experiences of violence, as well as surviving material remains.
Hostile encounters were a fundamental component of the crusades in the Latin East. Combatants strategized, confronted, and defended against their opponents, often recording their military endeavours in writing or, occasionally, within the landscape itself. This virtual conference will investigate key components of conflict in the Latin East, including military strategies, physical and mental experiences of violence, as well as surviving material remains.
Research Interests:
17-18 September 2016, Cardiff University
Research Interests:
17-18 September 2016, Cardiff University
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Engineering and Routledge
The Latin principalities of the Levant, which were established in the aftermath of the First Crusade, enjoyed limited military support from the Norman kingdom of Sicily through most of the twelfth century. What is often noted as the... more
The Latin principalities of the Levant, which were established in the aftermath of the First Crusade, enjoyed limited military support from the Norman kingdom of Sicily through most of the twelfth century. What is often noted as the exception is the Sicilian attack on Alexandria in 1174. Typically presented as an effort to aid the Frankish principalities, the attack was reportedly planned in coordination with Amalric of Jerusalem and Shiite conspirators in Egypt. The reality, however, may have been somewhat different. Most of what we know about this episode comes from Muslim sources, and most details can be traced back to Saladin's propagandists. By inflating the threat posed to Alexandria, and Muslim Egypt by extension, Saladin added to the public image he was cultivating, one of a warrior dedicated to the fight against the invading Christians and a devout defender of Sunni Islam. By implicating the Franks of the Levant in the attack, and associating it with a Fāṭimid conspiracy that had miscarried months earlier, Saladin further enlarged the significance of its defeat. In reality, there is little to corroborate claims that the Sicilians were acting in coordination with either the kingdom of Jerusalem or Shiite dissidents in Egypt. This may have been a far more traditional raid than has previously been supposed, one similar to others conducted by Sicilian forces against neighbouring ports along the coast of the Delta.
