The Malta Independent on Sunday | 3 January 2016 23 22 The Malta Independent on Sunday | 3 January 2016 Debate & Analysis Christians in Arab Malta (3) T herefore, if one is going to uphold Al Athir’s version and support the fact that Malta was not left de- serted as affirmed by some of the Arabic chroniclers, the logi- cal question would be: What happened to the island in the fol- lowing decades? In my opinion, the answer is to be found in Al Athir’s text. Al Athir has more references to Malta in his historical narrative. However, some of them are not associated with Malta. During my undergraduate years at the University of Malta, I still re- member Professor Godfrey Wet- tinger referring to one in particular but which according to Professor Wettinger, was not about the island of Malta but re- ferred to a town in Sicily. Wet- tinger was following the main historical narrative, starting with Michele Amari and continuing till recently that this locality called “Malta” by Al Athir should not be confused with the island of Malta. The main reason for this argu- ment is the way Al Athir de- scribed this town Malta, without specifying that it is an island and also in the way he spelt the name. Malta is written without the “alif”. In one particular in- stance, Malta is written in Ara- bic as [ ] and not [ ] as our island is normally written by Arab chroniclers both past and present. Thus, various ideas were formulated about this par- ticular place. There were those who opined that this ‘Malta’ stands for the town of Mileto in Calabria. The idea that Malta stands for the name of a tribe was also suggested. It should also be noted that there is a town in Asia Minor, or modern-day Turkey and a village in Yemen, with this particular name. According to the 19 th century Arabic scholar Faris Al Shidyaq, Al Sihah mentions ‘Maltiya’ as being one of the Armenian lands which were part of the Ottoman kingdom. But even this cannot be the place referred to by Al Athir, as he contextualised his story with the Arabic conquest of Sicily. At the same time, the possibil- ity that this place is Malta and this is just a spelling variation re- sulting from a calligraphic error by Al Athir or another way the Arabs wrote Malta in the 13 th century has not been explored. In Arabic, the variation lies only in a vowel. Malta is written here with the short vowel “a” instead of the normal long one, called Álif. Therefore, in Arabic, this can be read in various modes such as Malta (to be read in Mal- tese like habta, sabta, gabra) Malata, meleta, and in other pro- nunciations. It should be re- membered that in Arabic, the short vowels are normally not written down. In the case of Malta, Al Athir did not write the short vowels and this accounts for the confusion that has arisen around the identification of this place. Al Athir mentions this place called Malta when he comes to discuss the killing of the Emir of Sicily, Abu Al Qâsim, which took place in AD 982. He was killed in battle following the loss of Malta to the Byzantines earlier on. Once again, I would like to thank Frans X. Cassar for pro- viding a faithful, literal transla- tion of Al Athir’s text. The text of Al Athir is as per table on the right. This text is self-explanatory. The fort of Malta was part of a wider campaign that the Byzan- tines and the Franks waged to- gether against Sicily from 891 to 892. The loss of Malta was fol- lowed by intensive battles on both sides at the end of which, the Emir of Sicily, Abu Al Qâsim was killed in battle. But accord- ing to Al Athir, the Arabs still succeeded in vanquishing the Franks and the Byzantine army returned to Constantinople. It should be pointed out that Al Athir used the term Franks and Rum intermittently when refer- ring to Christians, without mak- ing any distinction between the Christians of the West and those of the East or as they are nor- mally defined between the Latin and the Byzantines. It was after Al Athir’s time, that the term Franks started to be associated mostly with the Latin West and the nomenclature Rum with the Byzantines. Even if Arab schol- ars continued to use these terms intermittently up till the 18 th cen- tury. Al Athir described this Chris- tian conquest as having been conducted by Barduwil or Bald- win whom he describes as one of the kings of the Franks. But be- fore getting to the identity of Baldwin, one needs to remember the context of this text. Al Athir is writing at the time of the Christian crusades and the Arabs started using the name Baldwin or Barduwil randomly for any one of the rulers of the Franks, past or present. Such a name became infamous with the Arabs because Baldwin was a very common or popular Latin name with the Western Chris- tians of this period. Further- more, the first king of Jerusalem was Baldwin I who was a Frank. The popularity of Baldwin made a number of Arab scholars iden- tify earlier Latin kings or gener- als, as well as Byzantine Emperors by this name. There should be no doubt that Al Athir is not mixing the Bald- win of 982 with the other Bald- win of the time of the Crusades. This can be confirmed from an extensive reading of Al Athir as he refers to the Frankish king, Baldwin I of Jerusalem in an- other part of his chronicle where he describes the kinship of Bald- win I with King Roger II of Sicily. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that the date in this Arab text is correct, as is that of the Emir of Sicily, Al Qasim. This correlates with what Alex Metcalfe states regarding the death of Emir Al Qasim in 982. At this time, the king of the Franks was the Holy Roman Emperor Otto II. He was waging war in Southern Italy and this brought him in direct conflict with the Byzantines and the Fa- timid Caliphate. At first, he was successful. He started the cam- paign in 980 and by the follow- ing year his armies had suc- ceeded in reaching Southern Italy and were carrying out in- cursions on Arab Sicily. There- fore, this account by Al Athir falls exactly during the time when Otto II’s armies were at- tacking Sicily and in that year, his forces had the upper hand. It was only in the following year, in 982, that Otto’s forces suffered a heavy defeat and had to retreat to the north of Italy. Otto had more than one gen- eral called Baldwin in his army and many of these Baldwins were Flemish. Al Athir seems to exclude that Baldwin was an ad- miral, even though Barduwil had to rely on a fleet to besiege the fortress of Malta. Admirals are known in Arabic as Emir il baħir. The nearest Baldwin king one can find to 982 was Baldwin IV of Flanders. He was son of Ar- nulf II of Flanders (c.960-988) Simon Mercieca In my previous article, I discussed Al Athir’s account on how, two years after Malta fell into Arab hands, a strong Byzantine army returned to conquer the island. After the devastation that the conquest of 868 provoked, the Arabs proceeded to fortify the main city of the island. Within two years, the new structure was strong enough to hold out against an invading Byzantine Army until a relief force arrived from North Africa which, in Al Athir’s words, forced the Byzantines to flee. and Rozela of Ivrea (955-c1003) but was born in 980! Baldwin IV is recognized as having been a good warrior and is mostly re- membered for his military cam- paigns in the Low Countries. However, due to his age, he can- not be the Baldwin to whom Al Athir refers in this text. Al Athir adds another impor- tant detail. He defines Barduwil as the king of the Byzantines. While in this period, the Byzan- tine Empire was considered on a par with the Latin Emperor of the West, the Crusades had cre- ated the perception among Arabs that the Christian kings were one and the same family and the Byzantine Emperor was a vassal of the Latin Emperor. This is due to the fact that at the time of Al Athir, the Byzantine Emperors had lost much of their power after Constantinople was sacked by the Venetians in 1204 during the fourth crusade, with the result that the Byzantine Em- perors started to appear as vas- sals to the Latin Emperor in the eyes of the Arabs. This explains why Al Athir defines the Byzan- tine Emperor as one of the Kings of the Franks. In 982, the Byzantine Emperor was Basil II, who lived from 958 to 1025. Like Otto II, Basil too was engaged in a war against the Fatimid of Sicily. He had a formidable navy with which he succeeded in dominating both the Eastern and the Central Mediterranean. More impor- tantly, in Greek, the name of the Emperor is Basileos, which one may rightly conclude to have been transliterated as Barduwil in Arabic. According to Al Athir, the fleet of Basil II reached Sicily and con- quered the fortress of Malta. Thus, the Arabs in Sicily found themselves besieged on two fronts. They were attacked by the forces of Otto II From the north, and from the East they were harassed by Basil II’s fleet. From a geopolitical point of view, it is very difficult to be- lieve that in this warring sce- nario the island of Malta was left deserted, as was claimed by Himyari. With the Byzantines desperate to establish a base from where to launch their at- tacks on Sicily, they would have marched and occupied a de- serted island with formidable harbours. Malta’s good harbours would have served the Byzan- tine navy well. As a historian, it is very difficult for me to accept that between 870 and 1054, which are the two dates during which we know that Malta was attacked by the Byzantines, no other attacks took place. It is even more difficult to believe that Malta was left deserted and was not occupied and used as a base by the formidable Byzan- tine navy during the seaborne campaigns of 982. Therefore, if Al Athir’s ‘Malta’ or [ ] stands for our island, this proves that the Fatimids cre- ated and fortified Mdina and the island was never deserted or better still unpopulated. The Arab city had gone through a siege in 982. This time, the return of the Byzantine army was suc- cessful and gave them control of the island. But the main reason why Al Althir’s “Malta” is not consid- ered to be the island of Malta is not in the spelling but more in the way that Al Athir described the action leading to the fall of the fort, when he wrote that “one of the kings of the Franks called Barduwil, went out with a large gathering of Franks on Sicily and besieged the fortress of Malta”. As Al Athir did not specify the geographical posi- tion of Malta, this fortress is nor- mally taken to be in mainland Sicily. However, a study of the medieval Arab texts yields no reference to a town in Sicily by the name of Malta or . Each time that a medieval Arab chronicler spoke about Malta, he always referred to our island as [ ]. Indirectly, Al Athir hinted that the fortress of Malta was not in Sicily as he recounted how the Arabs had to engage their fleet for its recovery but due to the intervention of the Byzantine navy, the mission proved a failure. Secondly, it was normal among Arab chroniclers to discuss Malta together with Sicily and they never questioned that the place being described is our is- land. A case in point is Al Maqrizi, who wrote about the siege of Malta in 1429 and linked it with an attack on the island of Sicily. This passage is going to be a subject of a separate study, which will appear soon in a book about the Great Siege, which is being edited by Maroma Camilleri. It would be extremely strange and verging on the incredible that in Sicily there was a very important town called Malta, which was subject to a siege and the nomenclature [ ] is only mentioned once in the Arabic narratives of the Middle Ages, that is, in this par- ticular story. The third indication that this fort was in Malta is to be found in the historical narrative itself. The fortress of Malta fell before 1 st Dhi Al Qagħda of AH 372, which corresponds to Tuesday 17 th April 982. On that date, Abu Al Qâsim called a jihad for its re- covery. Most probably, the fort of Malta was conquered in the previous summer and it took over a year for the Emir, Abu Al Qâsim to declare a jihad to re- gain it. According to Al Athir, Al Qâsim declared war on the 1 st Dhu Al Qagħda of AH 372, that is, at the start of the sailing sea- son. The main campaign was fought in Sicily on 1 st Muharram AH 372 or 26 th June 982, during which, Abu Al Qâsim was killed. The fact that the Emir had to wait for winter to pass before starting the campaign indicates that he had to engage his fleet to wage war. In simple words, the fortress was an island in Sicilian waters. It should be remem- bered that in winter the fleet was rarely engaged in battle. The navigation season in the central Mediterranean started in April and ended towards the end of October. If Malta was in Sicily, as has been claimed, then Abu Al Qâsim did not have to wait for winter to pass before launch- ing his attack. Fourth. The Byzantines had the time to replenish their fort with troops, as they sent two armies of foot soldiers to oppose the landing of Abu Al Qâsim’s forces. Fifth. It should be pointed out that Al Athir uses the verb malakaha), which liter- ally means that the Byzantines have possessed the fortress of Malta. Thus, by using such a verb he is implying that it was a permanent takeover. Sixth. Al Athir avoids dis- cussing what happened to Malta and at no point, does he speak about its re-conquest by the Arabs. His text shows that this fortress was held in high esteem by the Arabs in Sicily. The proper reading of this text would be that Malta was at- tacked together with Sicily in a coordinated attacked made by the Byzantines and the Franks on the Fatimid of Sicily. The Arab forces tried to regain Malta but as already stated, they were repelled by the Byzantine fleet. The Byzantine army followed the Arabs to mainland Sicily, where they were joined by the armies of Otto II and a big battle was fought during which Al Qâsim was killed but the Arabs still were victorious. This ex- plains Al Athir’s euphoric de- scription of the Arab victory over the Franks and the Byzan- tine forces without referring to Malta’s destiny, as this would have demeaned his narrative. In fact, it is known that Otto II had to withdraw his armies from Sicily. Instead, Al Athir says that Al Qâsim’s son, Jâber, did not want to continue fighting, which means that the Arabs lifted their siege and did not cross the chan- nel and fight the Byzantines who were occupying the fort of Malta. With the help of Frans X. Cassar, who is patiently researching me- dieval Muslim accounts for refer- ences about Malta, I will be presenting more Arabic texts that can help us know better what re- ally happened in the dark years of the 10 th and 11 th centuries. The Re-conquest of ‘Malta’ by the Byzantines in AD 982