Crimes of Crusaders

It is a well known fact that Saladin continued a policy of raiding and invasion. And why only focus on Saladin, are you afraid to venture beyond one tiny time period and one charismatic individual because it might confirm my point that both sides did horrific things to one another in war? The more you insist on confining the discussion to one individual, the more this seems to be the case.

Actually you are once again incorrect, you failed to prove they didn't kill the citizens of the city, which they infact did. They even took 40 of the city's most distinguished citizens back to Iraq and then executed them when they refused to convert to Islam. The Orthodox Church actually commemorates this atrocity with the Feast of the Fourty Martyrs, an especially solemn ceremony in Byzantine times. Hardly what you would call civilized, it was barbaric plain and simple and proves my point that armies in this period were as bad as eachother. You also failed to refute my other examples, which just vindicates my point. Also, don't accuse me of stating tailored information, I provided valid examples which you responded to be leaving out critical information, which is hypocritical. I keep refuting your incorrect statements, which you respond to by trumping up a triviality which has less and less to do with the topic, which I am then forced to correct.

I should also point out I am in no way trying to vindicate what the Crusaders did, as I have stated in other threads I believe them to be a pack of quite bloodthirsty men with wordly amibitions driving many of them. I just refuse to sit back and let someone try and say that their enemies were faultless, or gloss over their atrocities by shoving one charismatic individual in my face to distract attention.

 Its ridiculous to condemn the christian west of being barbaric and uncivilised when the muslim east was quite obviously just as bad. The medieval age is a time of mass executions, tortures, persecution, and were cities are sacked mercilessly.

 John Julius Norwich : The apogee p49 siege of Amorium.

 "Even then the garrison fought on courageously; but at last its commander sent out three of his officers with the local bishop, offering to deliver up the city in return for the promise of safe conduct to all who wished to leave. Mutasim refused, insisting on unconditional surrender."

 "Many of the inhabitants took refuge in a large church, in which they were promptly burned alive by the conquerors; others, taken captive and led off into slavery, were slaugtered when the army's water supply ran low, or were left to die of thirst in the desert."

 Seems to me the muslims wernt all that civilised after all, I know this flies in the face of centuries of propaganda, but you'll have to get over it.

  "Well Saladin and his Army still way better than any crusading army. I don't see to where are you heading to saying he is a good man only. SHOW me what his army did? period."

 It should be pointed out that Richard the Lionheart defeated Saladin at Arsuf and then outside Jaffa. So please learn something about history before you make yourself look even more silly.

This is true and written by byzantine historian Anna Komnen that Bohemond has roasted Turkish dead bodies at front of peoples. Its also written that having bath and wash their bodies with Turkish bloods would bless their sins!!!!!!!!
___________________________________________________

Persons of every age, rank, and degree, took the cross. When men wanted faith, women left them in disgust and followed the holy banner, carrying infants in their arms. Sometimes a rustic shod his oxen like horses, and placed his whole family in a cart. Whenever a castle was sighted the poor creatures inquired if it was Jerusalem. Monks threw off their gowns and enrolled themselves as warriors. "Women appeared in arms in the midst of warriors," says Michaud, "prostitution not being forgotten among the austerities of penance." [180:2] "The moral fabric of Europe," says Mills, "was convulsed; the relations and charities of life were broken; society appeared to be dissolved." [180:3]

Walter the penniless, a gentleman of Burgundy, whose poverty was more remarkable than his military abilities, led the first body, which consisted of twenty thousand foot, and only eight horsemen. [180:4] They swept through Hungary and entered Bulgaria, where they were regarded as so many savage invaders, and refused supplies. Walter's mob turned their arms against the unfriendly Christians, but they were miserably beaten. Hundreds of them fled into a church, trusting that the Bulgarians would not spill blood in the house of God. The sanctity of the place was so far respected, but the edifice was set on fire, and many perished in the flames, while others were killed in leaping from the roof. Walter escaped with a few associates, and found refuge at Constantinople. [180:5]

Peter the Hermit led the second host of forty thousand [180:6] men, women and children, of all nations and languages. Arriving at Malleville they avenged their precursors by assaulting the town, slaying seven thousand of the inhabitants, and abandoning themselves to "every species of grossness and libertinism." According to Mills "virgin modesty was no protection," and "conjugal virtue no safeguard" [181:7] against these sanctified soldiers of the cross. King Carloman marched an army against them, and they fled. Many were drowned in the Save, on the other side of which the survivors were attacked by a large body of Turcomans. The French suffered heavily, but the Germans and Lorrainers avenged them; and Peter offered as a bloody sacrifice to God the few prisoners who remained after the battle.

Bulgaria was a desert before Peter's horde. The duke had gone to the fortified town of Nyssa, and the inhabitants had retreated into the forests. A band of Germans set fire to some houses near Nyssa, and the people rushed upon the rear of the Crusaders, avenging their wrongs with massacre and plunder. In turn the city was assaulted, but the Crusaders were repulsed with a loss of ten thousand. Peter lost heart and burst into tears, but some robuster lieutenants collected his scattered followers; and destitute of arms and money, and unable to procure provisions, they marched in a famishing state to Philipopolis, where Peter's eloquence obtained them assistance. Thence they marched to Constantinople, but the emperor prudently refused them admission, and ordered them to remain in Greece. He supplied them with provisions, and as soon as they recovered strength they "repaid his generosity by deeds of flagitiousness on his people. Palaces and churches were plundered to afford them means of intoxication and excess." [181:8] Alexius shipped them across the Bosphorus, where they recommenced their excesses. Michaud says that they "committed crimes which made nature shudder." [181:9] Peter lost all control over them, and returned to Constantinople. The French were distinguished for ferocity. They killed children at the breast, scattered their limbs in the air, and carried their ravages to the very walls of Nice. They took the castle of Xerigord, and slaughtered the Turkish garrison. But the Sultan attacked them with fifteen thousand men. Their leader, Reginald, with some companions, embraced Islamism. The rest persuaded Walter the Penniless to lead them, and soon met with the reward of their crimes. The Turks exterminated them, and made a pyramid of their bones

Heraclius:

You seem angry enough, so why not start a thread on the Crimes of Mohammedans in exterminating Christianity and pagan religion in North Africa; conducting the widespread slave trade in all their territories; overthrowing established governments and societies from Spain to India and operating as pirate states in the mediterranean for a couple of hundred years.

Oh, and while we are at it, how about that battle of Tours.....Invading a land that is the origin of a lot of the world's best wines by a bunch of non alcohol drinkers.  THAT took some nerve! 

Here we go again, John Julius Norwich

Syracuse

Sorry, I don't know what do you mean by well known. As I always say,Saladin fought the Christian kingdoms in the holy land to return them back. That is another issue, we are focusing here on the code of conduct for Wars.

Why don't I venture beyond Saladin and crusade?

Aren't we already doing so? or what is that all deviations we had? Can you focus please on  my question. The thread is basically Crusaders were an army of savage soldiers killing Muslims, Jews and Christians! Unless you think they killed pagans instead!  Any objection to this? Later, after confessions, we can go over excuses to justify their acts. Also, take your time listing resources. This help us to go back and read in details instead of one side of the picture.

Arabs went conquering like mad, exterminating pagans and christians from northern Africa.

Our topic is code of war conduct, not if you don't like your land to be conquered or not. Also, that was a gradual slow conversion. Egypt didn't become Muslim except after 400 years from their conquest. If we wanted a sudden conversion we could have adopted the crusade methods of just depopulating the area of their previous inhabitant and bring our people instead as it happened in Jerusalem and many other Palestinian cities. Do you understand now why we have Kurdish and Turkish tribes there who came with Saladin after the re-conquest? Because merciful crusaders depopulated the place.

Finally, a question to deviate us more away from the topic, if Muslims were as much as savage as Crusaders that time, can anyone explain why do we have Christian in the holy land since 2000 years? Spain under the treaty of Granada of 1492, couldn't stand fullfilling its requirement more than 1611 when all Muslims of Spain had to convert of leave. Now, I creatd more deviations from the topic

You mean just like the Crusaders fought to bring the Holy Land back into the sphere of Western civilization's influence? As for conduct of the wars I have already clearly established that both sides committed atrocities, so refrain from adopting such a sanctimonious attitude. Failing to know that Muslims killed innocent people and sacked cities just goes to show how limited your understanding of warfare was during the period.

I think its a very valid point to bring up the original Muslim expansion to compare with the crusades.  People often concentrate on the good rather than the bad and what the Muslims did especially to Africa was major crimes that are overlooked. 

But we also must remember, who started the Crusades?  The Crusaders did.  That was was started by their aggression and thus they should not be treated favorably.  It would be like blaming hte Soviet Union for Germany invading it.  Although that is a good analogy, Soviets and Germany, both were pretty evil, though one was certianly the aggressor, and that sums up the crusades quite well i think.