The siege of Ma'arra occurred in late 1098 in the city of Ma'arrat Nu'man, in what is modern-day Syria, during the First Crusade. It is infamous for the claims of widespread cannibalism committed by the Crusaders.
In July 1098, Raymond Pilet d'Alès, a knight in RaymondIV's army, led an expedition against Ma'arra, an important city on the road south towards Damascus. His troops met a much larger Muslim garrison in the town, and they were utterly routed with many casualties.[5] For the rest of the summer, the Crusaders continued their march south, captured many other small towns, and arrived again at Ma'arra in November.
Siege
On the morning of November 28, 1098, Raymond IV and Robert II, Count of Flanders, launched an unsuccessful assault on Ma'arra. Bohemond joined them that afternoon and attempted a second unproductive attack.[6] The citizens were initially unconcerned since Raymond Pilet's expedition had failed, and they taunted the Crusaders. The Crusaders could also not afford to conduct a lengthy siege, as winter was approaching and they had few supplies, but they were also unable to break through the city's defences, consisting of a deep ditch and strong walls.
The defenders of the city, mostly an urban militia and inexperienced citizens, managed to hold off the attacks for about two weeks.[6] The Crusaders repeatedly sent envoys offering terms of surrender that included security of the Arab population's lives and properties in return for the establishment of a Frankish governor of the city.[7] These terms were rejected. The crusaders spent this time building a siege tower, which allowed them to pour over the walls of the city,[6] while at the same time, a group of knights scaled the undefended walls on the other side of the city.
The Crusaders used the siege tower to destroy a wall on December 11 and began pillaging. The fighting subsided for the night but resumed in a brutal plunder the following morning. Some Muslims negotiated a surrender to Bohemond; these men were killed, and the women and children were enslaved and sold.[8] Meanwhile, Bohemond seized most of the loot. However, Raymond's army had largely secured the city, resulting in the latter claiming the fortification for the bishop of Albara. The armies remained stationary until January 13, 1099, when they resumed the march south to take Jerusalem.[9]
Cannibalism
Crusaders cutting up victims for consumption (13th-century painting)
During or after the siege, some of the starving crusaders resorted to cannibalism, feeding on the bodies of Muslims. This fact itself is not seriously in doubt, as it is acknowledged by nearly a dozen Christian chronicles written during the twenty years after the Crusade, all of which are based at least to some degree on eyewitness accounts.[10] The crusaders' cannibalism is also briefly mentioned in an Arab source, which explains it as due to hunger ("racked by dearth").[11]
There is conflicting evidence on when exactly and why the cannibalism happened. Some sources state that enemies were eaten during the siege, while others (a slight majority) state that it happened after the city had been conquered.{sfn|Rubenstein|2008|p=537}} Another source of tension exists regarding its motives – was it practised secretly due to famine and lack of food, as some sources suggest, or publicly in front of the enemies to shock and frighten them, as others imply?[12]
After the city's fall, the Crusaders stayed there for about a month before continuing their march to Jerusalem while their leaders debated how to divide the lands they had conquered.[13] One group of chronicles suggests that the cannibalism occurred after the end of the siege and was entirely motivated by hunger. The earliest text in this tradition, the Gesta Francorum, states that because of great deprivations after the siege, "Some cut the flesh of dead bodies into strips and cooked them for eating." Peter Tudebode's chronicle gives a similar description, though adding that only Muslims were eaten.[14] Several other works that are partially based on the Gesta Francorum include similar accounts, likewise stating that only Muslims or "Turks" were consumed. Only one of them says that "human flesh was being traded openly", while the others imply that it was only eaten discreetly, out of sight.[15]
Raymond of Aguilers, who seems to have been present at Ma'arra, likewise states that the cannibalism happened after the siege and "in the midst of famine", but adds that human flesh was consumed in public and "with gusto" rather than secretly and shamefully. He adds that these spectacles shocked the Muslims who were terrified by the resolution and cruelty of the crusaders – which is somewhat at odds with his account that these events happened after the fall of the city when all Muslims in the vicinity were either dead or enslaved.[16]
Three other accounts, by Fulcher of Chartres (who was a participant of the Crusade though not personally present at Ma'arra), Albert of Aachen and Ralph of Caen (both of whom based their accounts on interviews with participants) state that the cannibalism happened during the siege and suggest that it was a public spectacle rather than a shameful, hidden episode.[17] Ralph states that "a lack of food compelled them to make a meal of human flesh, that adults were put in the stewpot, and that [children] were skewered on spits. Both were cooked and eaten." He asserts that he heard this "from the very perpetrators of this shame", that is, from some of the cannibals themselves.[18] Albert writes "that the Christians, in the face of the scarcity about which you have heard, did not fear to eat... the bodies, cooked in fire, not only of the Saracens or Turks they had killed, but also of the dogs that they had caught", thus cynically implying that eating dogs was worse than eating Muslims.[19] Fulcher states that many crusaders "savagely filled their mouths" with cooked "pieces from the buttocks of the Saracens" which they had cut from the bodies of enemies while the siege was still ongoing.[20]
While multiple sources concur on the fact of the cannibalism, both its timing and its motives are thus in doubt. Another issue is whether such acts were limited to Ma'arra or happened also elsewhere during the First Crusade, as several accounts suggest. Some sources describe cannibalism several months earlier, during the siege of Antioch.[21] The Byzantine princess Anna Komnene ascribes it to an even earlier period, the People's Crusade, and describes it in a way similar to Ralph of Caen: "they cut in pieces some of the babies, impaled others on wooden spits, and roasted them over a fire".[22]
Several medieval interpretations of cannibalism during the Crusade, by Guibert of Nogent, William of Tyre, and in the Chanson d'Antioche, interpret it as a deliberate act of psychological warfare, "intended to strike fear in the enemy". This implies it must have happened during rather than after the siege, "while there were still Muslims alive to witness it and to feel the horror that was its intended by-product".[23]
In concluding his discussion of the various accounts of the cannibalism, historian Jay Rubenstein notes that the chroniclers felt discomfort and tried to downplay what had happened, hence tending to give only part of the facts (but without agreeing on which part and interpretation to give).[24] He also notes that the fact that only Muslims were eaten is at odds with hunger as a sole or primary motive – presumably, desperate starving people would not have cared much about the religion of those they consumed.[25] He concludes that Ma'arra was probably only "the most memorable instance of what was likely a periodic response to famine", namely cannibalism, and that it went "beyond poor and hungry people eating from the dead" in secret. He rather supposes that "some of the soldiers must have recognized its potential utility [as a weapon of terror] and, hoping to drive the defenders into a quick surrender, made a spectacle of the eating, and made sure that Muslims were the only ones eaten."[24]
Historian Thomas Asbridge states that, while the "cannibalism at Marrat is among the most infamous of all the atrocities perpetrated by the First Crusaders", it nevertheless had "some positive effects on the crusaders' short-term prospects". Reports and rumours of their brutality in Ma'arra and Antioch convinced "many Muslim commanders and garrisons that the crusaders were bloodthirsty barbarians, invincible savages who could not be resisted". Accordingly, many of them decided to "accept costly and humiliating truces with the Franks rather than face them in battle".[26]
Controversy about the role of the Tafurs
Some chroniclers, as well as various later sources, blamed the cannibalism at Ma'arra on the Tafurs, a group of crusaders who followed strict oaths of poverty. In recent times, several scholars have continued to identify the Tafurs as the chief perpetrators of cannibalism.[27] Guibert of Nogent was the first to attribute cannibal acts specifically to the Tafurs, at the same time downplaying their significance and declaring that they happened – if at all – only in secret.[28] In the later Chanson d'Antioche, however, the Tafurs reappear as fanatics who "roast Saracen bodies on spits just outside Antioch's walls", shocking the defenders.[29] Rubenstein concludes that a desire of some chroniclers "to blame the poor for the cannibalism... led them to create the Tafur mythology"[30] and that this mythology flourished in later times because it helped isolate the unpleasant memories of the crusader cannibalism from the armed, heroic crusaders themselves, instead squarely blaming it on a group of poor, unarmed helpers.[31]
Among modern historians, Amin Maalouf is probably the best known who upheld the Tafur thesis:
The inhabitants of the Ma'arra region witnessed behaviour during that sinister winter that could not be accounted for by hunger. They saw, for example, fanatical Franj, the Tafurs, roam through the country-side openly proclaiming that they would chew the flesh of the Saracens and gathering around their nocturnal camp-fires to devour their prey.[32]
Maalouf also notes that the events at Ma'arra helped shape a negative image of the Crusaders in Arab eyes. "For three days they put people to the sword, killing more than a hundred thousand people", one Arab chronicler wrote. While this was widely exaggerated, as the whole city's population had probably been less than ten thousand, it indicates an amount of violence that deeply shocked the Muslim world, while the "barely imaginable fate" of the bodies of victims – to serve as food for the conquerors – was an even more profound shock. After these events, the "Franj" frequently appear in Arab and Turkish sources as brutal "beasts" and "anthropophagi".[33]
Maalouf's argument has come under criticism by other scholars. Rubenstein agrees with him that "Arab historians do remember Ma'arra as the scene of a horrific massacre", but he criticizes Maalouf's claim that "oral tradition" preserved the cannibalistic horrors among the Arabs as "probably an argumentative sleight of hand", pointing out that it was Christian rather than Arab chroniclers who recorded and documented the cannibalism – and that it was some of them, not Arabs, who specifically blamed the Tafurs.[34] Carine Bourget agrees with Maalouf that the tendency of major 20th-century accounts of the crusades to downplay or altogether omit the cannibal episode is problematic,[35] but she reproaches him for engaging in a "rewriting of history" of another kind, by not mentioning the single Arab source that mentions the cannibalism and explains it as due to hunger, to strengthen his "fanaticism" conjecture.[11]
Year 1098 (MXCVIII) was a common year starting on Friday of the Julian calendar.
The First Crusade (1096–1099) was the first of a series of religious wars, or Crusades, initiated, supported and at times directed by the Latin Church in the Middle Ages. The objective was the recovery of the Holy Land from Islamic rule. While Jerusalem had been under Muslim rule for hundreds of years, by the 11th century the Seljuk takeover of the region threatened local Christian populations, pilgrimages from the West, and the Byzantine Empire itself. The earliest initiative for the First Crusade began in 1095 when Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos requested military support from the Council of Piacenza in the empire's conflict with the Seljuk-led Turks. This was followed later in the year by the Council of Clermont, during which Pope Urban II supported the Byzantine request for military assistance and also urged faithful Christians to undertake an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
Baldwin I was the first count of Edessa from 1098 to 1100 and king of Jerusalem from 1100 to his death in 1118. He was the youngest son of Eustace II, Count of Boulogne, and Ida of Lorraine and married a Norman noblewoman, Godehilde of Tosny. He received the County of Verdun in 1096, but he soon joined the crusader army of his brother Godfrey of Bouillon and became one of the most successful commanders of the First Crusade.
Godfrey of Bouillon was a preeminent leader of the First Crusade, and the first ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1099 to 1100. Although initially reluctant to take the title of king, he agreed to rule as prince (princeps) under the title Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri, or Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre.
Raymond of Saint-Gilles, also called Raymond IV of Toulouse or Raymond I of Tripoli, was the count of Toulouse, duke of Narbonne, and margrave of Provence from 1094, and one of the leaders of the First Crusade from 1096 to 1099. He spent the last five years of his life establishing the County of Tripoli in the Near East.
Bohemond I of Antioch, also known as Bohemond of Taranto or Bohemond of Hauteville, was the prince of Taranto from 1089 to 1111 and the prince of Antioch from 1098 to 1111. He was a leader of the First Crusade, leading a contingent of Normans on the quest eastward. Knowledgeable about the Byzantine Empire through earlier campaigns with his father, he was the most experienced military leader of the crusade.
Bohemond II was Prince of Taranto from 1111 to 1128 and Prince of Antioch from 1111/1119 to 1130. He was the son of Bohemond I, who in 1108 was forced to submit to the authority of the Byzantine Empire in the Treaty of Devol. Three years later, the infant Bohemond inherited the Principality of Taranto under the guardianship of his mother, Constance of France. The Principality of Antioch was administered by his father's nephew, Tancred, until 1111. Tancred's cousin, Roger of Salerno, managed the principality from 1111 to 1119. After Roger died in the Battle of the Field of Blood, Baldwin II of Jerusalem took over the administration of Antioch. However, he did acknowledge Bohemond's right to personally rule the principality upon reaching the age of majority.
Baldwin II, also known as Baldwin of Bourcq or Bourg, was Count of Edessa from 1100 to 1118, and King of Jerusalem from 1118 until his death. He accompanied his cousins Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin of Boulogne to the Holy Land during the First Crusade. He succeeded Baldwin of Boulogne as the second count of Edessa when he left the county for Jerusalem following his brother's death. He was captured at the Battle of Harran in 1104. He was held first by Sökmen of Mardin, then by Jikirmish of Mosul, and finally by Jawali Saqawa. During his captivity, Tancred, the Crusader ruler of the Principality of Antioch, and Tancred's cousin, Richard of Salerno, governed Edessa as Baldwin's regents.
The Crusader states, or Outremer, were four Catholic polities that existed in the Levant from 1098 to 1291. Following the principles of feudalism, the foundation for these polities was laid by the First Crusade, which was proclaimed by the Latin Church in 1095 in order to reclaim the Holy Land after it was lost to the 7th-century Muslim conquest. Situated on the Eastern Mediterranean, the four states were, in order from north to south: the County of Edessa (1098–1150), the Principality of Antioch (1098–1268), the County of Tripoli (1102–1289), and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099–1291). The three northern states covered an area in what is now southeastern Turkey, northwestern Syria, and northern Lebanon; and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the southernmost and most prominent state, covered an area in what is now Israel, Palestine, southern Lebanon, and western Jordan. The description "Crusader states" can be misleading, as from 1130 onwards, very few people among the Franks were Crusaders. Medieval and modern writers use the term "Outremer" as a synonym, derived from the French word for overseas.
The Principality of Antioch was one of the Crusader states created during the First Crusade which included parts of modern-day Turkey and Syria. The principality was much smaller than the County of Edessa or the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It extended around the northeastern edge of the Mediterranean, bordering the County of Tripoli to the south, Edessa to the east, and the Byzantine Empire or the Kingdom of Armenia to the northwest, depending on the date.
Bohemond III of Antioch, also known as Bohemond the Child or the Stammerer, was Prince of Antioch from 1163 to 1201. He was the elder son of Constance of Antioch and her first husband, Raymond of Poitiers. Bohemond ascended to the throne after the Antiochene noblemen dethroned his mother with the assistance of the lord of Armenian Cilicia, Thoros II. He fell into captivity in the Battle of Harim in 1164, but the victorious Nur ad-Din, atabeg of Aleppo released him to avoid coming into conflict with the Byzantine Empire. Bohemond went to Constantinople to pay homage to Manuel I Komnenos, who persuaded him to install a Greek Orthodox patriarch in Antioch. The Latin patriarch of Antioch, Aimery of Limoges, placed Antioch under interdict. Bohemond restored Aimery only after the Greek patriarch died during an earthquake in 1170.
The Treaty of Deabolis was an agreement made in 1108 between Bohemond I of Antioch and Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, in the wake of the First Crusade. It is named after the Byzantine fortress of Deabolis. Although the treaty was not immediately enforced, it was intended to make the Principality of Antioch a vassal state of the Byzantine Empire.
The Siege of Jerusalem marked the successful end of the First Crusade, whose objective was the recovery of the city of Jerusalem and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre from Islamic control. The five-week siege began on 7 June 1099 and was carried out by the Christian forces of Western Europe mobilized by Pope Urban II after the Council of Clermont in 1095. The city had been out of Christian control since the Muslim conquest of the Levant in 637 and had been held for a century first by the Seljuk Turks and later by the Egyptian Fatimids. One of the root causes of the Crusades was the hindering of Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land which began in the 4th century. A number of eyewitness accounts of the battle were recorded, including in the anonymous chronicle Gesta Francorum.
The siege of Antioch took place during the First Crusade in 1097 and 1098, on the crusaders' way to Jerusalem through Syria. Two sieges took place in succession. The first siege, by the crusaders against the city held by the Seljuk Empire, lasted from 20 October 1097 to 3 June 1098. The second siege, of the crusader-held city by a Seljuk relieving army, lasted three weeks in June 1098, leading to the Battle of Antioch in which the crusaders defeated the relieving army led by Kerbogha. The crusaders then established the Principality of Antioch, ruled by Bohemond of Taranto.
Maarat al-Numan, also known as al-Ma'arra, is a city in northwestern Syria, 33 km (21 mi) south of Idlib and 57 km (35 mi) north of Hama, with a population of about 58,008 before the Civil War. In 2017, it was estimated to have a population of 80,000, including several displaced by fighting in neighbouring towns. It is located on the highway between Aleppo and Hama and near the Dead Cities of Bara and Serjilla.
The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Christian Latin Church in the medieval period. The best known of these military expeditions are those to the Holy Land in the period between 1095 and 1291 that had the objective of reconquering Jerusalem and its surrounding area from Muslim rule after the region had been conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate centuries earlier. Beginning with the First Crusade, which resulted in the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099, dozens of military campaigns were organised, providing a focal point of European history for centuries. Crusading declined rapidly after the 15th century.
Raymond Pilet (1075–1120), the only child of Bernard I Pilet of Narbonne and his wife, whose name is unknown. Seigneur of Alès. Bernard was the son of Raymond II, Viscount of Narbone from 1066 to 1067. The name “pilet” refers to a fur that the nobility wore over their cuirass and coats-of-arms. Raymond distinguished himself as a combatant during the First Crusade.
The Battle of the Lake of Antioch took place on 9 February 1098 during the First Crusade. As the Crusaders were besieging Antioch, word reached the Crusader camp that a large relief force led by Radwan, the Seljuq ruler of Aleppo, was on the way. Bohemond of Taranto gathered all remaining horses and marched in the night to ambush the Muslim army. After several successful cavalry charges, the Crusader knights routed the numerically superior Muslim army, forcing Radwan to retreat back to Aleppo.
The timeline of the Principality of Antioch is a chronological list of events of the history of the Principality of Antioch.
The Tafurs were a group of Christian participants of the First Crusade. Zealots following strict oaths of poverty, they are said to have committed acts of cannibalism during the siege of Antioch or the siege of Ma'arra.
References
↑ Edgington, Susan; Sweetenham, Carol, eds. (2011). The Chanson D'Antioche: An Old French Account of the First Crusade. Routledge. p.391.
↑ Asbridge, Thomas (2017). "Knowing the Enemy: Latin Relations with Islam at the Time of the First Crusade". In Housley, Norman (ed.). Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber. London: Routledge. Ch. 2. ISBN978-1-351-92392-7.
Heng, Geraldine (2003). Empire of Magic: Medieval Romance and the Politics of Cultural Fantasy. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lebedev, Claude (2006). Les Croisades, origines et consequences. Éditions Ouest-France. ISBN2-7373-4136-1.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
