96 Baybars I
Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks,trans.
Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit: Wayne State University
Press, 1975).
Baybars I (Baibars, al-Zahir, Baybars al-Bunduqdari,
Rukn-ad-Din)(1233–1277)Mamluk sultan of Egypt
Born about 1233 of a Turkish family settled in southern
Russia, Baybars was sold as a slave-soldier or mamlukto
the AYYUBIDS. In 1246 he was taken to EGYPTand entered
the guard of Sultan al-Salah Ayyub (r. 1240–49), who
made him a commander in the army. Baybars took part in
the MAMLUKrevolution of 1250. In 1260 he was in the
army that defeated the Mongolian forces at AYN-JALUT,
west of Bethlehem in PALESTINE. Although this was only
part of HULEGU’s army of the khanate of Persia, a Mongo-
lian army had been defeated in battle for the first time,
and Baybars won immense prestige and the nickname “al-
Malik al-Zahir,” or “victorious king,” becoming a leader
of all of Islam. After the murder of his colleague Qutuz (r.
1259–60), he became, in 1260, the fourth sultan of the
Mamluks. To win legitimacy, he recognized the uncle of
the last Abbasid caliph, who was murdered by the MON-
GOLSat Baghdad in 1258, and so became a champion of
ISLAMagainst the Mongols.
Baybars consolidated his rule by conquering most
of the small Ayyubid states in Syria at Kerak, DAMASCUS,
and ALEPPObetween 1262 and 1263. Using his effective
army and excellent communication system, he attacked
the remnants of the crusader states and, between 1265
and 1271, conquered Caesarea, Arsuf, Safed, ANTIOCH,
Beaufort, Jaffa, and Montfort. This was in effect the
virtual end of the crusader states, which was reduced
to only a few fortified coastal cities, including ACRE,
BEIRUT, and TRIPOLI. He also attacked the Armenian
kingdom of Cilicia and conquered a number of
strongholds on the Taurus passes.
Baybars was a gifted general, but also a clever
diplomat, who knew how to isolate his enemies by
alliances, even striking deals with Christians and
Mongols. He organized the army and the navy and
encouraged economic development. He died, perhaps
accidentally poisoned, on July 17, 1277, and was
buried in Damascus.
See alsoASSASSINS;NUBIA.
Further reading:P. M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplo-
macy, 1260–1290: Treaties of Baybars and Qalawun with
Christian Rulers(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995); Abdul-Aziz
Khowaytir, Baibars the First: His Endeavours and
Achievements(London: Green Mountain Press, 1978);
Syedah Fatima Sadeque, Baybars I of Egypt(Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1956); Peter Thorau, The Lion
of Egypt: Sultan Baybars I and the Near East in the Thir-
teenth Century, trans. P. M. Holt (London: Longman,
1992); G. Weit, “Baybars I,” Encyclopedia of Islam,
1.1124–1126.
Bayeux Tapestry Location of the famous Bayeux
Tapestry, the city of Bayeux in Normandy was named after
an ancient Gallo-Roman people, the Baiocasses. In the
NORMANperiod, it was closely controlled by the dukes.
WILLIAMI the Conqueror installed his half brother ODO,
or Eudes, as bishop of Bayeux from 1049 to 1097. Odo
likely commissioned the Bayeux tapestry. This nearly
unique “canvas of the conquest,” as it was long called, was
an embroidered cloth nearly 250 feet long by 20 inches
wide showing Harold’s journey to Normandy, William’s
expedition to England up to the Battle of HASTINGS, and
his coronation at LONDON, all accompanied with details of
military and civilian life in the margins. The tapestry in its
present state seems incomplete; it was executed in the
ROMANESQUEstyle, probably between 1066 and 1077, in
an English workshop, probably at CANTERBURY.
The tapestry was in Bayeux at the time of Odo’s dis-
grace in 1082 but was not mentioned again until 1476 inThe remains of a Muslim watermill
See alsoEMBROIDERY.
Further reading:David J. Bernstein, The Mystery of
the Bayeux Tapestry,(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1986); Shirley Ann Brown, The Bayeux Tapestry: History
and Bibliography (Woodbridge, Suffolk, U.K.: Boydell
Press, 1988); Richard Gameson, ed., The Study of the
Bayeux Tapestry(Rochester, N.Y.: Boydell Press, 1997);
David M. Wilson, The Bayeux Tapestry: The Complete
Tapestry in Color(New York: A. A. Knopf, 1985).beast epics and fables Beast epics were long narra-
tives in verse form of tales of animals with human charac-
teristics, partially based on the older fable tradition of
Aesop. They had their origins in the 11th century in
France and Germany and primarily involved REYNARD THE
FOX. The beast fable was a prose or verse story of animals
with human qualities with an obvious moral intent. It was
one of the two most important branches of animal story in
medieval Europe. The primary difference between the
much older Aesopic collections and the stories of Reynard
the Fox was that the structure of the Aesopic material
consisted of a series of moralistic fables involving many
different animals, as distinct from the continuous tales of
the fox Reynard or the wolf Ysengrimus and their cynical
and dubiously moral activities at the court of a lion. Such
animal stories were different from other works in which
animals speak and act, such as The Owl and the Nightin-
gale,which partially drew on animal fable but were essen-
tially structured as debate poetry.
The intended interpretation of animal fables was usu-
ally simple and didactic, so they were often used as school
texts. In the later Middle Ages, they became more sophis-
ticated and even systematically philosophical. The 15th-
century English printer William CAXTONwas to translate
and print two books of both kinds of animal story: The
History of Reynard the Foxin 1481 and Aesopin 1484.