Crimes of Crusaders

Originally posted by ill_teknique how can you compare salah ad din massacring soldiers vs richard massacring the townspeople?

It is easy. Both soldiers and townspeople are human beings, who were unable to defend themselves. Both act was rooted in political/military causes. (Military orders did not pay ransom.)

War is horrible and cruel, medieval wars was crueler in some aspect than the modern war. Do not be a succesful medieval ruler If you want to be a philanthopist.

 

Originally posted by Heraclius  Pikeshot. Your right.  But I have to believe there is hope for these people  perhaps im to patient, but I shall give them one more chance to make sense and drop the bias before my patience finally gives out. Cant say I didnt try.

People ask for sources of this article recently so here is the link;

 

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~freethought/foote/crimes/conten ts.htm

 

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~freethought/foote/fbio.htm

 

Thank you

Crimes of Crusaders were many reasons. Landness knights and poor peasants were superfluous and were excluded by feudalism. But in Palestine they had power and could live out their agression. They thought that they made a nice thing. The propaganda before the first Crusade was very succesful in the West. And they were angry because most of them died in hunger or illness during the marching. So, Crusaders thought that massacring the population of Palestine wasn't a fault.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Mortaza: As I read yours, Arab misdeeds in the 700s to 900s are less relevant than Crusader misdeeds in the 1100s because they occurred too long before, and/or because spreading the Mohammedan faith by the sword eviscerated most non Moslems so there were fewer people to complain or resist. Rather Machiavellian, even if Machiavelli wasn't Moslem.

Let us not repeat things without understanding. We just addressed that point earlier and I asked then, if forced conversion was applied why do we have Christian in Iraq, Syira, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan...everywhere and Jews living there before the Islamic invasion and still live there. Why didn't they disappear or their history cut, like what happened to Muslims in Spain and Malta?

A. J. Arberry, a well known middle eastern expert and translated the Quran too, said: 

The rapidity of the spread of Islam is a crucial fact of history... The sublime rhetoric of the Qur�an, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy�. (M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur�an, p.vii) ...

Christian in Egypt for instance were the majority for hundreds of years before their converstion flipped the coin. Just bear in mind that the fact the conversion of conquered Islamic countries was fast, does not necessary means it was forced. At least you didn't fell in the mistake of saying South East Asians were conquered and convert to Islam by force, because no Muslim Army of any Empire travelled there to conquer them

Doesn't amaze you too that while Muslims being crushed and prosecuted by the Mongols, in less than 40 years, most Mongols will be Muslims?

Edited by �ok ge�

Originally posted by �ok ge� Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Mortaza: As I read yours, Arab misdeeds in the 700s to 900s are less relevant than Crusader misdeeds in the 1100s because they occurred too long before, and/or because spreading the Mohammedan faith by the sword eviscerated most non Moslems so there were fewer people to complain or resist. Rather Machiavellian, even if Machiavelli wasn't Moslem.  Let us not repeat things without understanding. We just addressed that point earlier and I asked then, if forced conversion was applied why do we have Christian in Iraq, Syira, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan...everywhere and Jews living there before the Islamic invasion and still live there. Why didn't they disappear or their history cut, like what happened to Muslims in Spain and Malta? A. J. Arberry, a well known middle eastern expert and translated the Quran too, said:  The rapidity of the spread of Islam is a crucial fact of history... The sublime rhetoric of the Qur�an, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy�. (M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur�an, p.vii) ... Christian in Egypt for instance were the majority for hundreds of years before their converstion flipped the coin. Just bear in mind that the fact the conversion of conquered Islamic countries was fast, does not necessary means it was forced. At least you didn't fell in the mistake of saying South East Asians were conquered and convert to Islam by force, because no Muslim Army of any Empire travelled there to conquer them Doesn't amaze you too that while Muslims being crushed and prosecuted by the Mongols, in less than 40 years, most Mongols will be Muslims?

exactly, for example irak and iran didnt have more than twenty percent muslim a century and a half after the prophets death, and in the holy land or the mediterrenaen coast the byzantines were oppressive, and tried to weed out with force if necessary all alternative forms of christianity.  wehn the calipahte took over they were happy to actually be able to practice their religion in peace and that is why the conquest was easier becuase the population did not supress it.

you still cant compare the killing of unarmed soldiers to the killing of women and children

Lets see some Islamic conquest...

From the Greek historian Kritovoulos

Here is what Mehmed did to those who wanted to live outside Turkish rule in their ancestral land....

The region of the plains 'he overran and plundered. After he pitched camp at successive points, and advanced, devastating the country, burning the crops or else gathering them for himself, and destroying and annihilating. And the Illyrians (the words Kritovoulos uses throughout for the Albanians) took their children, wives, flocks and every movable up to the high and innaccessible mountain fastnesses. They had their arms also, and they settled down to defend themselves in these difficult strongholds and passes against any attackers.'

Kritovoulos goes on to describe the campaigns against them:
'When the Sultan had pillaged and devastated all their lowlands, he made careful preparations, and after putting down the whole army in first class conditions, he moved against the Illyrians and their children and wives and all their belongings. He placed on the van the bowman and musketeers and slingers, telling them to shoot and fire their arrows, sling their stones against the Illyrians and drive them as far away as possible, and get rid of them by firing at the heights.'

'Behind them he ordered the light infantry, the spearmen and those with the small shields to go up, and, following them, all the heavy-armes units. These went up slowly and in irregular ranks, up to a certain point, gradually pushing the Illyrians up to the heights. Then with a mighty shout, the light infantry, the heavy infantry and the spearmen charged the Illyrians, and having put them to flight, they pursued them with all their might, and overtook and killed them. And some were captured alive. But some of them, hard pressed by the heavy infantry, hurled themselves from the precipices and crags, and were destroyed.'

'The heavy and light artillery, and in fact the whole army, scattering over the mountains and the rough country and the ravines, hunted out and made prisoners of the children and women of the Illyrians, and plundered all their belongings. Not only this, but they carried off a very large number of flocks and herds. They scoured thoroughly the whole mountain, and hunted out and secured a very enormous booty of prisoners and cattle and other things, and brought it all down to the camp. '

Originally posted by Iskender Bey ALBO Lets see some Islamic conquest... From the Greek historian Kritovoulos Here is what Mehmed did to those who wanted to live outside Turkish rule in their ancestral land....

Well, I still find Tododai's Point meaningful in this sense too. You cannot use examples of 300 years later to justify what the crusaders did. Now, I am-with my limited knowledge- do not dispute the interpetation of history Kritovoulos has brought. However, the person background can be helpful too. He is first greek, so no wonder his intensive criticism on a specific time of history which is the fall of constantinepole and Mehmet II. Because of the fact that he is a contraversial historian with a lot of Greek national bride in him. Most of his articles will be a nice addition to websites like:

http://koz.vianet.ca/turmoil.htm With a title called "The Ottoman Halocaust"

http://members.fortunecity.com/arthur_kemp/hwr35.htm Europa: The History of the White Race

Anyhow, we cannot run through greek history of Ottomans and Ottoman history of greeks. I guarantee you we will have a whole new world of accusation of both sides which is already known to a lot of people the love between Greeks and Turks

Iskender, they dispute him between being just a comtemporary, a historian, and that Mehmet II commissioned a biography of himself in Greek, from a minor Greek official, who is Michael Kritovoulos. So that is a dispute already. It will be little hard to believe Sultan Mehmet II will commission someone who will picture him as a ruthless or savage conquerer. Anyhow, even with that, how can you use a source of a man commissioned to write about someone in a specific way? I guess you just liked to take his words that fits your purpose

Now, I looked everywhere for the quotations you have that Kritovoulos said, especially the second part. I only found so far the largest collection of his quote on this website (which is by the way hardcore anti-ottoman) and no mentionining of the quotations you have said about the killing that occured by order to the civilians.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr35.htm

Can you please supply me with the sources you acquired those quotes from?

Finally, this is a record of Mehmet II treatment to the conquered city. Now Kritovolous himself says that he left the city with everything including the names and he transferred a lot of Turks and Muslims to the city to make it a Muslim one. So he didnt' have to slaughter them by the  way. And this article is by the Washington Post, and as you are in the States,  you know its credibility. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/ch ap1/constantinople.htm

Yet there were not enough Muslim Turks for Constantinople to be a wholly Turkish city. The majority of the empire's population, at this stage, was Christian. Turks were needed throughout the empire, to people Balkan cities and the Anatolian countryside. Accordingly, so the historian Kritovoulos wrote, after 1453 the Sultan gathered people in Constantinople `from all parts of Asia and Europe, and he transferred them with all possible care and speed, people of all nations, but more especially of Christians. So profound was the passion that came into his soul for the city and its peopling, and for bringing it back to its former prosperity.' In the new capital each mahalle or quarter (the basic living unit of the city, with its own places of worship, shops, fountains and night-watchmen) kept, with the name of its inhabitants' city of origin, its special customs, language and style of architecture.

Edited by �ok ge�

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Mortaza: As I read yours, Arab misdeeds in the 700s to 900s are less relevant than Crusader misdeeds in the 1100s because they occurred too long before, and/or because spreading the Mohammedan faith by the sword eviscerated most non Moslems so there were fewer people to complain or resist. Rather Machiavellian, even if Machiavelli wasn't Moslem.

I dont know what you mean, but I know even after 1500 year, there were christians at the Suidi Arabia(until vahabis exiles to them), heart of Islam. After 900 year 20-30% of anatolia was christian. (Until exiles)

Most of Muslim crimes were last 100 year, If you want to justify crusader, be sure our crimes are more justification. we were resisting christian expansion and colonization at our land. But crusaders resist Islamic  expansion at another one land.