Roman/Byzantine The earliest known written mention of the town appears in a Roman route itinerary, likely created during the reign of Emperor
Antoninus Caracalla. In this document, a settlement named Arra is listed as a stop along the road connecting
Emesa and
Cyrrhus. Based on its location in the itinerary, Arra can be confidently identified as present-day Maarat al-Numan, suggesting that the town was already inhabited by the early 3rd century CE. The museum of the city has a lot of Roman and Byzantine exhibits. In June 2025, a
Byzantine-era tomb complex dating back to the 6th century was uncovered. The tombs contained
sarcophagi, and pottery shards as well as glass fragments were found nearby. Muslim forces, led by
Abu Ubayda, captured the city in 637 CE. Although Byzantine Emperor
Nikephoros II Phokas briefly retook it in 968, the city was later recaptured by the Muslims.. By the time of
Estakhri (951) the place had recovered, as he described the city "very full of good things, and very opulent".
Figs,
pistachios and vines were cultivated.
Crusader Ma‘arra massacre (1098) The most infamous event from the city's history dates from late 1098, during the
First Crusade. After the crusaders, led by
Raymond de Saint Gilles and
Bohemond of Taranto, successfully
besieged Antioch they found themselves with insufficient supplies of food. During or after the siege of Ma‘arra some of the starving crusaders therefore 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 degrees on eyewitness accounts. The crusaders' cannibalism is also briefly mentioned in an Arab source, which explains it as due to hunger. There is conflicting evidence on when exactly and why the cannibalism happened. Some sources state that enemies were eaten during the siege, others (a slight majority) state that it happened after the city had been conquered. 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 in order to shock and frighten them, as others imply? The earliest of the texts suggesting that the cannibalism occurred after the end of the siege and was entirely motivated by hunger is the
Gesta Francorum. It 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. Several other works include similar accounts, likewise stating that only Muslims or "Turks" were consumed. 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. 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." Several medieval interpretations of the cannibalism during the Crusade, by
Guibert of Nogent,
William of Tyre, and in the ''
Chanson d'Antioche'', interpret it as an 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". Some chroniclers as well as various later sources blame the cannibalism at Ma'arra at the
Tafurs, a group of crusaders who followed strict oaths of poverty. One interpretation in this tradition is the French poem
The Leaguer of Antioch, which contains lines such as: :
Then came to him the King Tafur, and with him fifty score :
Of men-at-arms, not one of them but hunger gnawed him sore. :
Thou holy Hermit, counsel us, and help us at our need; :''Help, for God's grace, these starving men with wherewithal to feed.'' :''But Peter answered, 'Out, ye drones, a helpless pack that cry,'' :
While all unburied round about the slaughtered Paynim lie. :
A dainty dish is Paynim flesh, with salt and roasting due. In concluding his discussion of the various accounts of the cannibalism, historian Jay Rubenstein notes that the chroniclers clearly 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). He also notes that the fact that only Muslims were eaten is at odds with hunger as sole or primary motive – presumably, desperate starving people would not have cared much about the religion of those they consumed. He concludes that the cannibalism at Ma‘arra likely went "beyond poor and hungry people eating from the dead" in secret, rather suggesting 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." He notes, however, that the Tafurs were almost certainly "scapegoats" blamed for acts which were by no means particularly limited to them. 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".
Late medieval period Ibn al-Muqaddam received lands in Maarat al-Nuʿman in 1179 as part of his compensation for yielding
Baalbek to
Saladin's brother
Turan Shah.
Ibn Jubayr passed by the town in 1185, and wrote that "Everywhere around the town are gardens... It is one of the most fertile and richest lands in the world".
Civil War The town was the focus of intense protests against the government of President
Bashar al-Assad on 2 June 2011. On 25 October 2011, clashes occurred between loyalists and defected soldiers at a roadblock on the edge of the town. The defectors launched an assault on the government held roadblock in retaliation for a raid on their positions the previous night. The
Free Syrian Army took control in December 2011–January 2012. The regime recaptured it at a later date. On 10 June 2012, the FSA took it back, but the military recaptured it in August. Finally the FSA captured the town again in October after the
Battle of Maarat al-Numan (2012). As the
Syrian Civil War followed, the town's strategic position on the road between
Damascus and
Aleppo made it a significant prize. Starting on 8 October 2012, the
Battle of Maarat al-Numan (2012) was fought between the FSA and the government, causing numerous civilian casualties and severe material damage. The town was home to the
FSA Division 13. The hospital was targeted again by Syrian government and Russian planes in April 2017, on 19 September 2017 and in early January 2018. On 19 April 2016, at least 37 people were reportedly killed when the Syrian government launched air strikes on markets. Dozens more were also injured during the attack. In 2016, the town
came under the control of
HTS, but was also the site of significant civil society protests against HTS in 2016 and 2017. The town's market was bombed in October 2017. The
Syrian Liberation Front took the town from HTS (Al-Qaeda) on 21 February 2018. The
Ma'arrat al-Numan market bombing was perpetrated on 22 July 2019. It killed 43
civilians, and injured another 109 people. On 28 January 2020, Ma'arrat al-Nu'man was successfully captured by
government forces during the
5th Northwestern Syria offensive. But nearly five years later, on 30 November 2024, Syrian rebel forces retook the city during their
Northwestern Syria offensive. ==Landmarks==