February – April 1265 · Caesarea – Haifa – Arsuf
Baybars' Caesarea–Arsuf campaign
In a campaign begun in February 1265, Baybars took Caesarea, then Haifa and Arsuf, defended by the Hospitallers. The walls of the captured cities were demolished and the region brought under Mamluk rule; the Latin coastal strip south of Acre shrank considerably.
RESEARCH DOSSIER
Historical analysis of the event
Background
When the Mongol Ilkhanid army moved toward the Euphrates in 1264–1265, Baybars marched north; when the Mongols withdrew, he turned his army on Latin territory. Caesarea was a coastal city refortified under Louis IX; Arsuf had been sold to the Hospitallers in 1261 and strongly fortified.
Course of events
Baybars took Caesarea in a surprise attack on 27 February 1265; the citadel surrendered on 5 March and the defenders were allowed to go to Acre. The city's walls were demolished. Haifa was then attacked; some of its people escaped by ship, and those left were killed or captured.
The siege of Arsuf, begun on 21 March, lasted about six weeks thanks to the Hospitallers' resistance. The town was taken at the end of April, and according to the sources the defenders of the citadel were captured despite the terms of surrender. An attack was also made on the area around Atlit (Château Pèlerin), but that castle was not taken.
Outcome and significance
At the end of the campaign the Kingdom of Jerusalem held only a few points south of Acre, such as Atlit and Jaffa. By demolishing the cities he took, Baybars prevented the crusaders from using these places as bases for future expeditions; this became a fundamental element of Mamluk coastal strategy.
The captured lands were distributed among Baybars's emirs as iqta's, and the region was quickly brought under a new administrative order.
Sources and debates
Ibn Abd al-Zahir and Ibn Shaddad of Aleppo describe the sieges in detail and stress that the sultan himself fought. The Gestes des Chiprois and the Templar of Tyre report the Latin side's losses. Whether the terms of Arsuf's surrender were violated is reported differently in the sources.
Dates, places and figures in this record compare the principal narrative sources with modern scholarship. Where the sources disagree this is stated in the text; for a thesis or publication, consult the relevant edition and page reference.