Siege of Ma'arat

[alhoon]

This came to my attention as I was reading around wikipedia to pass the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Maarat

Pretty enlighted right? I believe that an army without provisions should retreat instead of resorting to cannibalism. Their commanders shouldn't have let the soldiers reach to such low extremes because of hunger.

[Lost Sultan]

Ahhh...crusaders....

[jankren]

The Arabs were cannibalizing too when they were besieging Constantinople.

Extreme condition demands extreme measure.

[Burnum]

The Arabs were cannibalizing too when they were besieging Constantinople.

Extreme condition demands extreme measure.

I would like source for this, please.

[gaius valerius]

This came to my attention as I was reading around wikipedia to pass the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Maarat

Pretty enlighted right? I believe that an army without provisions should retreat instead of resorting to cannibalism. Their commanders shouldn't have let the soldiers reach to such low extremes because of hunger.

Obviously, medieval warfare didn't work along those lines and those armies were all but structured.

[Blarni]

Far more armies have resorted to cannibalism than is commonly recorded or realized, and where it was recorded, modern sensibilities frequently ignore it.

And retreating wouldn't have solved the hunger problem, starving people can't march far.

[alhoon]

Far more armies have resorted to cannibalism than is commonly recorded or realized, and where it was recorded, modern sensibilities frequently ignore it.

I didn't know. I was shocked when I heard the Crusaders ate the Muslims.

And retreating wouldn't have solved the hunger problem, starving people can't march far.

That's why you leave months before the provisions end.

[hellheaven1987]

I have read somewhere about an account of how those Crusaders ate Turkish flesh; the account states that some Crusaders cut off the flesh of Turkish butt and simply roasted it with some salt. Cannot remember where did I read this but the image of roast Turkish butt is...

[Blarni]

That's why you leave months before the provisions end. [/QUOTE]

Ideally, but I guess in a siege situation you keep hoping you'll break in, and if you believe you have the mandate of god you assume you will (being a crusader must have toughened you up as far as disappointment was concerned imagine going all that way, eating god knows what (well in this case we do know) and no second coming....)

Also from a practical point of few I think the First Crusade was a total logistics nightmare - the Pope was envisioning a small elite force of the best knights in Europe and ended up with a vast rabble of every slack-jawed peasant and his crippled cousin.

[Keravnos]

This thread can and should grant some honor to an unsung branch of the Army.
Logistics

"An army marches on its stomach".

[alhoon]

This thread can and should grant some honor to an unsung branch of the Army.
Logistics

"An army marches on its stomach".

But eating Saracens?! And comparing the experience to eating dogs?

While there must be some exageration on the reports, it can't be that a 30-40 soldiers got a bite. Much of the army feasted on the dead!

[gaius valerius]

I didn't know. I was shocked when I heard the Crusaders ate the Muslims.

They merely chopped of their bottoms (the tasty part you could say), if you have to choose between death by hunger and bottom, yes it was muslim, but then again, that was the foe right, don't go searching anything of meaning behind it though, they also ate dogs, and they weren't crusading against those.

That's why you leave months before the provisions end.

Indeed, the centralised leadership of this superbly oiled warmachine that was the first crusade... oh wait... it wasn't, it was a disorganised heap of christians from various places led by various men with no realisation of what the word logistics even meant. It's easy for you to be a "smartass" - no offence - and be captain obvious, but to them you'd be talking Chinese.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Even a leader like Bohemond would be quite powerless to do anything about it.

[motiv-8]

In hindsight the episode at Ma'arat wasn't particularly striking given the extreme conditions and necessity, but as Amin Maalouf discusses in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes it had significant contemporary impact on the local populations -- it was simply terrifying. Although there's no way of absolutely knowing, the population of cities like Tyre may have not held out for so long had that event not occurred.

[ivan_the_terrible]

In hindsight the episode at Ma'arat wasn't particularly striking given the extreme conditions and necessity, but as Amin Maalouf discusses in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes it had significant contemporary impact on the local populations -- it was simply terrifying. Although there's no way of absolutely knowing, the population of cities like Tyre may have not held out for so long had that event not occurred.

I remember reading that. While reasonable, and quite logical, I felt that much of this was speculation. Syria had already been very fragmented prior to the crusaders' arrival, with quite a bit of warfare, so things like this may well have happened without crusaders.

But I'm the one that's speculating now. They were local conflicts, after all. The soldiers probably just disbanded and went home if a siege was not completed in the campaigning season.

[motiv-8]

Does the narrative of Ma'arat really isolate logistics as causal, though? Consider that the first time the crusaders arrived in Ma'arat was in winter, while expeditions were being organized and sent from Antioch to gather supplies. That time, however, they were repulsed by the Fatimid garrison of the town. All throughout the subsequent year Ma'arat was ignored while the crusaders conquered other towns. It was only in November that they returned in much larger numbers and overwhelmed the walls. I know this is speculative, but couldn't you read something punitive in that?

Perhaps one thing to defeat that speculation would be the very fact that it wasn't until November. One might think that a punitive effort would have taken place as soon as possible. In any event it might not explain the cannabilism, either; it is also suggested that the town had far fewer provisions than had been thought -- though they very likely might have existed, the previous year, but not after two sieges and a nervous year in between.

Sorry, mostly arguing with myself here..

[Dr. Oza]

crusaders literaly ate the hearts and souls of muslims...

to think people think templars and hospitallers are cool

sickening...

The Arabs were cannibalizing too when they were besieging Constantinople.

Extreme condition demands extreme measure.

any proof?

[Blarni]

[QUOTE=Sipahizade;6172447]crusaders literaly ate the hearts and souls of muslims...

to think people think templars and hospitallers are cool

sickening...


Oh come on now - on the whole how were the Christian crusaders worse than their Muslim counterparts? who were every bit as much invaders and interlopers in the Holy Land and Levant (and North Africa, the Balkans and Spain). Contrary to the stereotype, the Crusader rulers of Outremer treated their native subjects as least as well as the original Arab conquerers - if they paid their extra tax, they were left alone. And like the Arabs they made little effort to convert anyone, they wanted a tax-paying "heathen/Dhimmi" underclass. And at least the Christian crusaders had one (weak) claim to moral cause over the Muslim crusaders - they believed they were liberating the formally Christian lands of the once Roman Empire from foreign invaders.

Templars/Hospitalliers/Mamluks/Ghulams = two sides of the same coin.

[Dr. Oza]

Oh come on now - on the whole how were the Christian crusaders worse than their Muslim counterparts? who were every bit as much invaders and interlopers in the Holy Land and Levant (and North Africa, the Balkans and Spain). Contrary to the stereotype, the Crusader rulers of Outremer treated their native subjects as least as well as the original Arab conquerers - if they paid their extra tax, they were left alone. And like the Arabs they made little effort to convert anyone, they wanted a tax-paying "heathen/Dhimmi" underclass. And at least the Christian crusaders had one (weak) claim to moral cause over the Muslim crusaders - they believed they were liberating the formally Christian lands of the once Roman Empire from foreign invaders.

many monks and chroniclers report that after crusaders entered Acre, Jerusalem , and Tyre.. the blood of muslims was up to the knee

thr are no muslim crusaders...

and they believed no such thing... in reality at least.. they came thr to kill and make money

dont base ur judgements of of kingdom of heaven...

[Blarni]

many monks and chroniclers report that after crusaders entered Acre, Jerusalem , and Tyre.. the blood of muslims was up to the knee

thr are no muslim crusaders...

and they believed no such thing... in reality at least.. they came thr to kill and make money

dont base ur judgements of of kingdom of heaven...

Yes the initial conquest was bloody. But Outremer thrived on the cooperation of its Muslim population, who had viewed their Fatamid and Arab rulers as conquerors too (and taxes were actually lighter under the Europeans ). History has also seen its share of Muslim massacres of Christians, Jews and Hindus.

Muslim crusaders is an apt description - the only difference is they were more successful in the long-run, maintaining their conquests in the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa to this day where the much more limited Christian forays eastwards ultimately failed. Even the Sind (now Pakistan, the most Islamic of countries), was conquered from Arab-ruled Iran only on the fourth attempt.

You're right that few European crusaders would have really believed or at least cared about the 'liberation' cause. They were noxious colonizers and imperialists - exactly like their Muslim counterparts starting with the Arab Islamic Caliphate, which was an Arab Empire in every sense of the word, even the Muslim Berbers were second-class citizens in Andalusia. And I hope you don't believe the Ottoman conquests into Europe were purely out of the goodness of their hearts.

PS. Obviously none of this uses Kingdom of Heaven as a reference.