14th-century painting of the assassination of Nizam al-Mulk by an assassin.
View of Alamut besieged. The last Grand Master of the Assassins at Alamut Imam Rukn al-Din Khurshah (1255–1256) was executed by Hulagu Khan after a devastating siege. The Assassins were eradicated by the Mongol Empire during the well-documented invasion of Khwarizm. They probably dispatched their assassins to kill Möngke Khan. Thus, a decree was handed over to the Mongol commander Kitbuqa who began to assault several Hashashin fortresses in 1253 before Hulagu's advance in 1256. The Mongols besieged Alamut on December 15, 1256. The Assassins recaptured and held Alamut for a few months in 1275, but they were crushed and their political power was lost forever. "An Organised Terrorist Group meets an Organised Terrorist Army!" -- A disciplina in praesenti!
The
most successful premodern group to systematically employ terror was
found, appropriately enough considering that region’s centrality to
modern terrorism, in the Middle East. They were popularly known as the
Assassins. More properly they were the Nizari Ismailis, a Shiite sect of
the eleventh century AD that was persecuted by the rest of the Muslim
world. To carve out space to practice and proselytize their religion,
their first great leader, Hasan-i Sabbah, took to assassinating his
foes.
A “revolutionary of genius,” he established
in AD 1090 his stronghold in a fortress known as Alamut in the Elburz
Mountains of northern Persia. From this remote location, reachable only
by a single narrow track, he dispatched his da’is (missionaries) to win
converts to the Ismaili cause. But Hasan-i Sabbah was not satisfied
using nonviolent means to extend his sect. He also dispatched fedayeen
(self-sacrificers) armed with daggers to slay Muslim notables—clerics,
judges, teachers, administrators, soldiers—who opposed his heresies. In
their eagerness to attain a spot in paradise, the fedayeen usually made
little attempt to escape, thus becoming in effect suicide knifers. The
term “assassin” was a corruption of “hashish-eater”—a label that was
applied to the fedayeen by their enemies who assumed (erroneously) that
only powerful drugs could induce these men to sacrifice their own lives
in order to eliminate their enemies. In fact the fedayeen seem to have
been motivated by nothing more than religious zeal; taking intoxicants
would have made it hard for them to be as patient and clever as they
were in carrying out plots that often required considerable
dissimulation and playacting.
During the course of
Hasan-i Sabbah’s thirty-year reign, his fedayeen claimed only fifty
victims, all men of some standing. But, while minuscule by the scale of
most “reigns of terror,” whether of the Mongols or of the French
Revolution, this was sufficient to terrorize his enemies. From then on,
according to an Arab chronicler, “No commander or officer dared to leave
his house unprotected; they wore armor under clothes.”
During
all the years that Hasan-i Sabbah directed this campaign of terror he
never set foot outside his Alamut stronghold, in fact rarely even left
his room. He was, like many subsequent terrorist leaders, an
intellectual, and he spent countless hours deep in study in his
impressive library. He was a particularly devoted student of geometry,
astronomy, and arithmetic. A Byzantine envoy who met him came away
impressed: “His natural dignity, his distinguished manners, his smile,
which is always courteous and pleasant but never familiar or casual, the
grace of his attitudes, the striking firmness of his movements, all
combine to produce an undeniable superiority.”
But
this civilized exterior concealed a deep strain of religious
fanaticism. Early on he sent his wife and daughters away so as not to
distract him; he spent the rest of his life apart from them. When he
caught one of his sons drinking wine, he ordered his execution. Another
son he executed for killing a man without permission, only to later
discover that the charge was false. Hasan-i Sabbah’s willingness to
sacrifice his own children may have cast his humanity into doubt, but it
helped to inspire his followers. Making use of such dedication, he
succeeded in creating a state within a state—a series of Ismaili
bastions scattered around the Persian countryside that the ruling
Turkish Seljuks were too weak to wipe out.
Hasan-i
Sabbah died, apparently of natural causes, in 1124. His successors were
not his equals. The pace of assassinations slackened as the Ismaili
movement in Persia lost energy and became consumed by internal quarrels.
In time the movement’s western outpost in Syria would become more
dynamic. Here, too, the Ismailis managed to establish a network of
fortresses defended by suicide knifers. The Syrian Assassins were led
initially by Rashid al-Din Sinan, a native of what is today Iraq who
became known to the Crusaders as “the Old Man of the Mountain.” Sinan
tried unsuccessfully to kill Saladin, the great Muslim hero who would
lead an army of holy warriors to recapture Jerusalem from the Crusaders
in 1187. He had more success in dispatching Conrad of Montferrat, king
of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.
In 1192,
while in Tyre, Conrad was approached by two young Christian monks he had
befriended over the past six months. They spoke his Frankish language
perfectly and were obviously men of learning. After a minute of polite
conversation, they produced daggers from their robes and “fell upon him
like two mangy wolves,” in the words of an Arab chronicle. The wounded
king stumbled into a church, where he was finished off by one of the
assassins. Before his own death, the killer confessed that he had been
sent by Sinan. The cause of this assassination remains obscure. But its
impact on European minds was spectacular. A German priest was to write
to a French king contemplating a further Crusade that the Assassins “are
to be cursed and fled. They sell themselves, are thirsty for human
blood, kill the innocent for a price, and care nothing for either life
or salvation.”
In the thirteenth century the
Assassins finally confronted enemies who could not be deterred by the
threat of assassination. Their Persian strongholds were overrun by the
Mongols, who massacred large numbers of Ismailis along with everyone
else. The Syrian redoubts fell at roughly the same time to the slave
soldiers known as Mamluks, who would establish a dynasty ruling Egypt
and Syria. Millions of Ismailis still exist today led by the Aga Khan,
but they have not been a political force to be reckoned with since the
calamitous events of the thirteenth century. Nor have they undertaken
acts of terrorism since then.
Their reign of
terror, which lasted two centuries, was enough to establish their
reputation as one of the most successful terrorist groups in history.
Thanks largely to the dark genius of Hasan-i Sabbah, they developed a
highly effective organization, combining a covert hierarchy with a
compelling ideology and rigorous methods of indoctrination that inspired
his followers to sacrifice their lives for the cause. Those remain the
essential ingredients for terrorist success down to the present day. But
the Assassins also differed in crucial respects from most of their
successors. As Bernard Lewis notes, “Unlike their modern equivalents,
[the Assassins] attacked only the great and the powerful, and never
harmed ordinary people going about the avocations.”