Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
great_hunnic_empire
Janissary
Joined: 12-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Crimes of Crusaders Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 16:48 |
______________________________________________-
The Crusaders were savages then as the neo-Crusaders are today.
According to the three surviving eyewitness histories of the First
Crusade written independently by Latin participants, the crusaders
roasted and ate the flesh of enemy corpses, an act of such Bush*te
horror that all three chronicles are immediately driven to defend the
cannibalism by invoking extreme famine as exigent explanation.
Fulcher of Chartres's Historia Hierosolymitana ( History of the Expedition to Jerusalem ):
When the siege had lasted twenty days, our people suffered excessive
hunger. I shudder to speak of it, because very many of our people,
harassed by the madness of excessive hunger, cut off pieces from the
buttocks of the Saracens already dead there, which they cooked and
chewed, and devoured with savage mouth, when insufficiently roasted at
the fire. And thus the besiegers more than the besieged were tormented.
The version in the Gesta Francorum et aliorum Herosolimitanorum ( Deeds
of the Franks and Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem ), written by an
anonymous crusader in the army of Bohemond, the controversial Norman
leader of the Crusade:
While we were there, some of our men could not satisfy their needs,
either because of the long stay or because they were so hungry, for
there was no plunder to be had outside the walls. So they ripped up the
bodies of the dead, because they used to find bezants hidden in their
entrails, and others cut the dead flesh into slices and cooked it to
eat.
The narrative of the Provenal Raymond d'Aguilers, the Historia
Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem ( History of the Franks Who Captured
Jerusalem ):
Meanwhile, there was so great a famine in the army that the people ate
most greedily the many already fetid bodies of the Saracens which they
had cast into the swamps of the city two weeks and more ago. These
events frightened many people of our race, as well as strangers. On
this account very many of us turned back. . . . But the Saracens and
the Turks said on the contrary: 'And who can resist this people who are
so obstinate and inhuman, that for a year they could not be turned from
the siege of Antioch by famine, or sword, or any other dangers, and who
now feed on human flesh?" These and other most inhuman practices the
pagans said exist among us. For God had given fear of us to all races,
but we did not know it.
|
The land that my horse has rode on, there shall not be a grass againAtilla the Hun
p2.forumforfree.com/turan.html
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 21:04 |
The arabs and muslims were definitely not any better, so cut you nonsense and stop calling the crusaders savages. I'm proud of the crusaders. I don't believe that crap one second.
Edited by Quetzalcoatl
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 21:09 |
Why would anyone be proud of the crusaders, what did they do? They caused alot of war and failed in the end without any benefit to their home countries. Thats like me as an American saying " Im so rpud of my country in Vietnam, or Iraq" its silly.
But the Muslims have been given an over glamorous and chivalrous role. They fought and killed too. Obviously though we should allow them the greater leeway since they were defending their homeland by the attacks of a bunch of crazed religious fanatics. The Crusaders were the Al Qaeda of their day.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 21:15 |
The Crusaders were horrible and as Christians they are embarrasments. I
agree with Tobodai that it is crazy to be proud of the crusaders. The
Muslims were a little bit better though, but not much.
|
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 00:48 |
With no doubt, the crusader of the previous 9th crusades were better described as savage and they definitely shocked the Muslim world. We don't have to go over the details of their savage acts but we can list at least the major points which is agreed by both academic western sources and sources in the arab and muslim world.
1- in 1099, First Crusade ended with capturing Jerusalem and massacaring the entire population of 50,000 (some other sources states 70,000). When Saladin captured Jerusalem back in 1187, he did not let a throat to be slaughtered after the battle.
2- Salahadin in a clash that neared a battle, sent his doctor to treat Baldwin "the Leprous", King of Jerusalem.
3- Despite the treatment of Salahdin to the prisoners of war and allowing pilgrimage to enter Jerusalem, and not destroying any single church in all captured cities. In a 3rd Crusade, Richard the Lion decides to massacre the Muslims of Acre after capturing the city in 1191.
Therefore, definitely Muslims at that time were not only "little better", but were way superior in war conduct and way civilized than the crusaders. No wonder that few people dispute the tolerance of Saladin. If I were a descendent of a crusade, I would like to limit my pride for their savage acts. Beside they destroyed Mosques and Synaguges, they even killed christian in Jerusalem besides the jews and muslims because they looked saracens
P.S: Notice why I highlighted "at the time", i guess that would answer the question that might come, what about today savage terrorist acts?
Edited by ok ge
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 02:13 |
Well, I certainly agree with you ok ge, the Muslims at that time were not only "little better".
Like real savages do, they didn't even care about the confessions of their victims. They also plundered Constantinopel at the 4th crusade and other christian cities.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 02:39 |
The Crusades were a military adventure which comprised the typical
savagery and bloodshed of the times, don't acuse Western Europeans of
being total barbarians compared to their enemies. The corpse-eating
happened because in a time when logistical support was poor the badly
deprived Crusader army outside Antioch was simply starving. In the
siege of Constantinople in 717 the besieging Muslim army did exactly
the same thing, except they mixed the human flesh with excrement and
baked it before consuming it.
Get a better understanding of history before you decide to demonize one
particular race and attempt to glorify their enemies. Both sides
committed terrible atrocities, the mercies showed by both sides were
normally so rare and so small in scope as to be considered almost
cosmetic.
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 02:49 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
The Crusades were a military adventure which comprised the typical savagery and bloodshed of the times |
Yeah, if it is the typical savagery and bloodshed of that time, what made Saladin different then? Or even before him 400 years ago, whenUmar entered Jerusalem. Because I don't remember he massacred any or destroyed anything too. In fact, if you had time to go read more history, he refused to pray in the church of nativity when he was invited so it won't be later an invitation for Muslims to imitate him and disturbe the church.
Now, the topic is basically crusade crimes. If you admit them, then no need to open other topics from Orthodox Serbian genocides to Armeninian genocide ...etc
Now, since you already brought that story fo 717 Muslim seige of constantinepole, can you find us the links or the source you brought that information about eating and baking human flesh, just out of curiosity.
Finally, Yup, at that time, Europe was way way behind in civilization and in deep savagery. Today, it is the opposite. But I think i already mentioned that point.
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
Degredado
Consul
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 02:55 |
Originally posted by ok ge
Yeah, if it is the typical savagery and bloodshed of that time, what made Saladin different then? |
Because he had to out of necessity. He certainly wasn't better than Raymond of Antioch.
|
Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 03:11 |
Yeah, he was out of necessity because he was forced to follow the war code of conduct unlike his opponents. You cannot tell me he couldn't slaughter the residence of Jerusalem when he captured it? Or maybe what necessity he felt sending his doctor to treat Baldwin "the Leprous", King of Jerusalem?
When Richard was wounded, Saladin even offered the services of his personal physician, a signal favor, for Muslim medical practice was the best in the Western world. At Arsuf, when Richard lost his horse, Saladin sent him two replacements. They even considered making peace by marrying Richard's sister to Saladin's brother, with Jerusalem to be their dowry, although these negotiations fell through due to religious concerns on both sides. Richard once praised Saladin as a great prince, saying that he was without doubt the greatest and most powerful leader in the Islamic world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin
I know that some uncapabable of understanding that sense of tolerance in that time. Anyhow, I think I've spent too much time defending what is already agreed upon.
Edited by ok ge
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 03:12 |
John Julius Norwich - Byzantium: the Early Centuries. Check that out
for details of the siege in 717. His information is gleaned from
primary sources of the time.
Well it is nice you can provide me with two sources of clemency for a
time period spanning roughly 1000 years. But one of those refers to
events which happened in the 7th century, not the Crusading period. If
Umar violated the customs of the local populace it would have been a
stupid move, the only reason he gained the support of peoples in Syria,
Palestine and Egypt was by treating them leniently after decades of war
and heavy Byzantine taxation and bureaucracy. So being brutal would
have been military and political suicide. We see exactly the same
policy pursued in Spain by Christian Kings such as Alfonso VIII.
As for Saladin, yes he has shown some instances of celemency. But the
actions of an individual leader to not exonerate a movement from blame.
His followers still killed, looted, pillaged, raped etc. If you wanted
to do that I could say that King Louis's was a terrific individual and
because of that all Christian atrocities were excusable. Saladin's
successors and predecessors
were quite happy to act with just as much brutality as the Crusaders
did, so ferocious were certain Turkish and Syrian emirs that the Muslim
city of Damascus actually had a treaty of mutual defence with the
Christian Crusader States.
As for what has occured in the Balkans you can open threads on those if
you want, I will freely admit the atrocities committed by all ethnic
and religious groups there were wrong and deserve condemnation. The
point of my earlier response to this thread was that it is wrong to
demonize one group who participated in the Crusades as though their
enemies were a bunch of total angels, it just wasn't the case.
Edited by Constantine XI
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 03:24 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Get a better understanding of history before you decide to demonize one particular race and attempt to glorify their enemies. |
First, why do you think him taking about crusade savagery is demonizing a race? Maybe he is from the same race? and what race? christian race?
Second, the argument that he was a good leader and his followers committed crimes, show me then? That is in fact illogical. If he is the leader, he will of course enforce those acts on his army.
Third, no need to talk about the Balkan massacres. My point was clear that it is a deviation of the topic as much as the 717 seige of Constantinepole.
Fourth, I checked for that information too and i found only the same guy John Julius Norwich - Byzantium. Now you do realize that what I typed earlier was from western resources, as we have already Arabic resources about the same. Your resource is rendered so far single-sided?
Finally, make it simple again. Crusade against Muslims? At that period of time, what was the scenario if you will shoot a film? Go see Kingdom of Heaven, you know what i mean.
Edited by ok ge
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
azimuth
Caliph
SlaYer'S SlaYer
Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 03:25 |
well in comparison Islamic Rule in Jerusalem was much better than the Christan Rule there.
and obviously both Islamic and Christane Rule of Jerusalem was much much better than the Jewish one now.
|
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 03:30 |
Originally posted by azimuth
and obviously both Islamic and Christane Rule of Jerusalem was much much better than the Jewish one now. |
Christian rule of Jerusalem was better than the Jewish one now except during the crusade time. At the crusade time, definitely the jewish rule of Jerusalem now is much better. They didn't need to slaughter all the inhabitant of Jerusalem as crusaders felt the glory to do so. They didn't have to switch the rock dom to a place to store their horses there.
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 03:42 |
Well firstly the race I was referring to was loosely recognised during
those times as "Franks" or "Latins". Basically they consist of a bloc
of people whose dominant element in the East was Frankish, who were
united by a Latin creed and who often were the dominant element in the
Crusading military expeditions. As I am not French, not an adherant to
the Latin Creed, nor from any country who took part in the Crusades. I
don't suppose you could realistically class me as an inheritor of the
stock of men who were primarily responsible for the Crusades.
Secondly it was a fact of life that raid and destruction of civilian
property was the norm in the Crusader States. Enormous suffering was
visited on the peasantry in an effort by the Crusaders' enemies to
weaken them. This policy continued under Saladin. There are also
accounts by Muslim sources of the war by the Turks against Damascus
which saw widespread destruction, as well as the Fall of Acre in 1292
in which the vast bulk of the population was annihiliated.
Thirdly I deviated only slightly from the topic to relate it to
something which was highly relevant (i.e. cannibalism during medieval
siege warfare). You deviated to the modern Balkans, which has no
relevance to the point raised by the original poster - cannibalism in
medieval siege warfare.
Fourthly my reference is credible and accepted by scholars as correct
information. See Acre and Damascus if you want some sources of
destruction committed by the enemies of the Crusaders. I also recommend
you read Matthew of Edessa's history as that contains details of
further atrocities committed by the enemies of the Crusader forces.
Fifth, please read what I wrote before more carefully as it looks silly
to quote me as doing something I didn't. I did not apologise for
anything, quite simply because I don't believe I am liable for those
events
As for what has occured in the Balkans you can open
threads on those if
you want, I will freely admit the atrocities committed by all ethnic
and religious groups there were wrong and deserve condemnation
|
. It's nice your religion teaches you not to carry too much
guilt, but I think its tenets wouldn't help me much as I am free of
guilt. Also don't assume I am a Christian, I am not.
Edited by Constantine XI
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 03:55 |
I did re-read it and actually the last point you mentioned was last edited before 10 minutes of you posting your comment.
And I said earlier, if we had to isolate the event and focus on the title, while Saladin's Army acted with war conducts, the crusades broke every single rule of that conduct.
There are also accounts by Muslim sources of the war by the Turks against Damascus which saw widespread destruction, as well as the Fall of Acre in 1292 in which the vast bulk of the population was annihiliated
Destruction during the war and civilians death is normally expected. I just spent 10 minutes trying to find one example where a Muslim army captured a Christian city and slaughtered its inhabitants from the time of the prophet to the end of the last crusade. Do you have an example of that then?
Finally, you keep missing the point. I said:
Now, the topic is basically crusade crimes. If you admit them, then no need to open other topics from Orthodox Serbian genocides to Armeninian genocide ...etc
This means no need to deviate by unrelated topics such as Orthodox Serbian genocides on Bosnians and Turkish genocide on Armenians. These were examples of deviations. No need to state other example of deviations.
I suggest reading the books:
Edited by ok ge
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 04:13 |
Originally posted by ok ge
I did re-read it and actually the last point you mentioned was last edited before 10 minutes of you posting your comment.
And I said earlier, if we had to isolate the event and focus on the
title, while Saladin's Army acted with war conducts, the crusades broke
every single rule of that conduct.
There are also accounts by Muslim sources of the war by the
Turks against Damascus which saw widespread destruction, as well as the
Fall of Acre in 1292 in which the vast bulk of the population was
annihiliated
Destruction during the war and civilians death is normally expected.
I just spent 10 minutes trying to find one example where a Muslim army
captured a Christian city and slaughtered its inhabitants from the time
of the prophet to the end of the last crusade. Do you have an example
of that then?
I suggest reading the books:
|
Firstly I have read about Saladin, but I repeat you cannot exonerate an
entire side in a war from blame just because they have one man who
happens to be very nice. As I said if that were the rule then we could
spare the Crusader movement all the blame simply by looking at the
personal character of a man like Louis.
Secondly there were a number of places Muslim armies sacked in the
period you quoted. In the 640s they sacked Caesarea in Palestine. Let's
fast forward to the destruction they wreaked when they utterly
destroyed and pillaged Thessaloniki in the 9th century, or destroyed
Amorium in the same century and erased its population from the Earth.
When they retook Edessa they also wiped out most of the Frankish
(Crusader) population, while I have also mentioned Acre. So there are
some examples which shatter your assertation. Goes to show that it was
a brutal age in which both sides committed plenty of atrocities, which
is precisely what I have been saying all along.
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 04:27 |
You can't compare medieval people to modern norms. In my opinion the main questions are:
1) Were the crusaders worse than any army of that age?
2) Were the christian way of warfare crueler than the muslim's?
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 04:27 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
In the 640s they sacked Caesarea in Palestine. Let's fast forward to the destruction they wreaked when they utterly destroyed and pillaged Thessaloniki in the 9th century, or destroyed Amorium in the same century and erased its population from the Earth. When they retook Edessa they also wiped out most of the Frankish (Crusader) population |
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.
Last, do you know stating tailored piece of information is as bad as deceiving? Maybe you didn't mean to do so. Anyhow, lemme enlighten you. When Muslim troops routed the Byzantines on Upon this, the Byzantine emperor fled and the population fled of Amorium too, yet there was still a part of his army in Amorium.
The Muslim troops entered Angora and then headed for Amorium, which they reached ten days later and laid siege to.
Besieging Amorium
The blockade started. The Byzantine emperor sent a messenger to the caliph apologizing for the ruin his army had caused in his earlier invasion of upper syria lands and pledged that he would build the city of Zibatra that he had demolished and release the Muslim captives. But the caliph refused to come to terms and did not allow the messenger to return before the Muslims had conquered Amorium.
Therefore my dearest friend, Army soldiers are not civilians, and destroying the captured city is a retaliation to destorying Zibatra except, they didn't had to kill inhabitants as the Byzantines did.
Now, I won't go over your other examples. I would actually ask you this time to provide a lovely nice link about them for us to read. I don't have time to complete half told stories.
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 04:40 |
Originally posted by Raider
1) Were the crusaders worse than any army of that age? |
Yes, in different words, the crusaders army were worst than Salahdin's army and all other Muslim armies during the defense time. Other posts explained why in details.
Originally posted by Raider
2) Were the christian way of warfare crueler than the muslim's? |
Still talking about crusade, no doubt that crusade ,representing christians, they were not only uncivilized and savage but they have contributed nothing even to their fellow christian. For more details, I advice the PBS's (an American non-profit TV station of education) produced 3 hours movie "Islam-Empire of Faith" http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=1822722#r elated
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|