Left - Various political states in 1200 CE (wikipedia- ExploretheMed - CC BY-SA 3.0)
                  Right - Hypothetical Intensity map for 1202 CE Earthquakes on the Lebanese Restraining Bend (from Fig. 4 Hough and Avni , 2011).

Shortly before the Fourth Crusade, a powerful earthquake struck a vast region encompassing Egypt, Cyprus, and the Levant at daybreak on 20 May 1202 CE. The event is documented by both Western and Muslim sources, several of whom were contemporary eyewitnesses. Letters written about a month later by Geoffrey of Donjon and Philipe Du Plessis describe an earthquake that struck at or just before dawn, devastating Acre, Tyre, Tripoli, Arqa, Krak, Margat, Arsum, and Chastel Blanc. A later account by Robert of Auxerre repeats much of the information provided by Philipe du Plessis.

Ibn al‑Latif al‑Baghdadi experienced the earthquake in Cairo and wrote about it approximately two years later. Like Geoffrey of Donjon and Philipe du Plessis, he described a powerful shock that struck in the early morning. As with several other Muslim authors, the date he recorded in the Islamic calendar corresponds to 21 May 1202 CE; however, he also provided a date in the Coptic calendar equivalent to 20 May 1202 CE. In addition, he noted that the earthquake occurred on a Monday—yet 21 May 1202 CE fell on a Tuesday, whereas 20 May 1202 CE fell on a Monday. This confirms that the correct date for the main shock was 20 May 1202 CE and suggests that the Islamic calendar in use at the time differed slightly from the modern one.¹

Al-Baghdadi reported that the initial early morning shock in Cairo consisted of three violent tremors and lasted a long time. It was followed by a weaker shock around midday. In letters he reproduced from Hamat (Hama) and Damascus, the first shock was described as striking at dawn or in the early morning. In Hamat, the initial tremor was said to have lasted an hour, followed by a second that was shorter in duration but stronger in intensity—perhaps a triggered earthquake nearer to Hama. The time of this second shock was not specified. In Damascus, the first shock was also said to have lasted a long time; one observer claimed it endured as long as it takes to recite Surat al-Kahf, roughly thirty minutes. The Damascene historian Abu Shama, born about a year after the event, wrote that “for an hour the ground was like the sea.” Accounts describing shaking lasting between half an hour and an hour likely refer to the main shock followed by a sequence of powerful aftershocks or secondary triggered earthquakes. Sibt ibn al‑Jawzi, who experienced the earthquake in Damascus, stated that the initial tremor lasted about forty-five seconds—“as long as it took to read” Surat al-Kafirun. Among the Muslim authors, several report aftershocks that continued for up to four days, and four Western accounts² describe multiple earthquakes rather than a single event. This pattern probably reflects continuing aftershocks or a cluster of triggered earthquakes. The widespread destruction across Egypt, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria; the near-simultaneous occurrence around daybreak in Cairo, Damascus, and Hama; and the reports of multiple violent shocks together suggest that two or more fault ruptures were triggered within a short interval—minutes or hours. Shocks recorded a day or more later may indicate additional events. Ambraseys (2009) noted that this pattern resembles the triggered sequence of the Baalbek earthquakes of 1759, which occurred about a month apart.

The reports that strong shaking was felt in Egypt (including Cairo) while Jerusalem was spared major damage are intriguing. This can likely be explained by the fact that al-Baghdadi did not mention any building collapses or fatalities, indicating that Egypt experienced intense shaking but avoided catastrophic damage—similar to Jerusalem. If, however, later writers who describe widespread destruction and casualties in Egypt are correct³, this might suggest the occurrence of a secondary fault rupture farther south, perhaps in the southern Gulf of Aqaba or the Red Sea region.

The death toll reported for the 1202 CE earthquake was exaggerated by several authors. For example, Sibt ibn al‑Jawzi claimed that 1.1 million people perished. While the number of casualties was undoubtedly high, it is impossible to estimate accurately, as the earthquake struck during a time of widespread crisis—when a deadly plague was spreading and the Nile’s failure to overflow had led to famine. Several Muslim authors also described a tsunami, usually said to have struck the western, Crusader-controlled island of Cyprus. This tsunami may have resulted from an offshore slope failure, and it may likewise have impacted the Lebanese coast, though neither Muslim nor Western sources provide clear accounts of such a wave there.

In addition, several Muslim chroniclers mention a landslide that reportedly killed many people in the mountains outside Baalbek. Numerous contemporaneous and local Muslim sources give detailed descriptions of destruction in Damascus, including damage to the Great Mosque of Damascus. Sibt ibn al-Jawzi, who lived in Damascus at the time, described residents fleeing into the public square—an instinctive response to powerful earthquakes. Such eyewitness details lend credibility to his report and suggest that many people remained outdoors, fearful or unable to re-enter their damaged homes.⁴

Older earthquake catalogues misdated or duplicated the event, assigning it to the years 1201, 1202, 1203, or 1204 CE. These inconsistencies likely stem from erroneous dates in the medieval sources. A close analysis of the earliest accounts, however, provides an unambiguous date: 20 May 1202 CE. Nonetheless, duplicate dates in some chronicles⁵ could indicate the occurrence of a powerful foreshock, aftershock, or triggered earthquake separated by months or even years from the main event.

Descriptions of the damage cover a wide geographic area, which tends to expand in later sources written further in time from the event. According to the earliest writers, Jerusalem, Iraq, Antioch, Armenia, and Tortosa were spared or suffered only minor effects. These earlier, more conservative reports should be given greater weight. The collapsible panel titled “Areas Affected” lists localities mentioned in the earliest accounts. There is both paleoseismic evidence (e.g., the Kazzab Trenches and Bet Zayda) and archaeoseismic evidence (e.g., al-Marqab Citadel, Chastel Blanc, and Tel Ateret) supporting earthquake activity from this period. Paleoseismic evidence from the southern Araba dated to around this time has often been attributed to the earthquakes of 1068 or 1212 CE, though a connection to the 1202 CE event cannot be excluded.

Footnotes

1. Sibt ibn al-Jawzi discussed the earthquake in two separate passages, dating it incorrectly in the first and more or less correctly in the second. Like other Arabic writers, he placed the event at daybreak on 21 May rather than 20 May 1202 CE, a discrepancy likely caused by differences between the modern Islamic calendar and that used in his time. He also associated the event with 20 Ab in the Syriac calendar, which corresponds to 20 August; however, in the older Babylonian-Akkadian precursor to that system, 20 Ab equates to 20 May—probably the date he intended.

2. The western sources that describe the event include the letters of Philipe du Plessis, the chronicle of Robert of Auxerre, and the Old French works Chronicle of Ernoul and History of Heraclius.

3. Among the later Arabic sources, Abu Shama wrote in Damascus before 1268 CE, and Ibn al-Dawadari wrote in Cairo between 1331 and 1335 CE.

4. Thousands of people slept outdoors in the parks of Northridge, California after the 1994 earthquake (personal recollection by Jefferson Williams) — an event that left roughly 125,000 people temporarily homeless.

5. Ibn al-Athir also mentions what appears to be the same earthquake in two different passages, dating it to Shaʿbān A.H. 597 (7 May 1201 – 4 June 1201 CE) and A.H. 600 (10 Sept 1203 – 28 Aug 1204 CE). Similarly, Sibt ibn al-Jawzi dated what seems to be the same event in two separate passages to A.H. 597 (12 Oct 1200 – 30 Sept 1201 CE) and 20 May 1202 CE (in A.H. 598). Ambraseys and Melville (1988: 186) observe the following:

Two separate notices are also found in the chronicle of Sibt b. al-Jauzi (d. 1256), this time under 597 and 598 H. The first account, under Shaʿbān 597 H., echoes that of ʿAbd al-Latif [al-Baghdadi], while mentioning a few additional places. The date, however, is the one given by Ibn al-Athir. Sibt b. al-Jauzi supports this date by saying (p. 480) that after these earthquakes in 597/1201, both ʿImad al-Din (the historian whose work he had earlier quoted for an account of the famine in Egypt that year) and his own grandfather, the historian Ibn al-Jauzi, died. It is generally accepted that both men did indeed die in 597/1201 and thus before the earthquake. This is awkward to explain, but the author is probably trying to rationalize two conflicting pieces of chronological data. He is not so much dating the deaths by reference to the earthquake as accommodating the false date that he has accepted for the earthquake within the sequence of other events that year. Under the correct year, 598 H., he provides a much briefer account, describing damage to the castles at Hims and Hisn al-Akrad. He says the shock extended to Cyprus and destroyed what was left of Nablus (i.e. after the first earthquake). This implies two shocks. On the other hand, Sibt b. al-Jauzi’s second account is not unlike Ibn al-Athir’s second account (under 600 H.), and may again simply be an attempt to accommodate the conflicting dates. It is significant that Sibt b. al-Jauzi has no report of an earthquake under 600 H.