Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Bloodiest Sackings Of Cities
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Bloodiest Sackings Of Cities
    Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 22:00
Indeed. That's a nice story al Jassas.
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042 		  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 08:19

By siege terms, Helugu Khan's victory at Baghdad was extremely swift. Mongke Khan obviously had blood on his mind, when he put Helugu at the head of the largest Mongol army in the history of the empire, which even employed a large number of christian forces. The Grand Library no longer stood, mosques no longer stood, palaces no longer stood, hospitals no longer stood, the city was depopulated. Helugo moved his army away from the city due to the stench of dead bodies. It took close to 10 centuries for the city to recover.

Many people believe that the reason for the destruction, was to send a messege to the rest of the world, "Surrender to the Great Khan, or what happened to Baghdad will happen to you". Similar to what Alex III did when he destroyed the city of Thebes.  A very good tactic in my opinion.
 
We must also remember King Timur, who built a pyramid of 70,000 skulls after destroying the city of Isfahan, and 20,000 more after destroying Aleppo. If we were to combine his "wiping out" of the cities of Tikrit, and Baghdad, the outcome would be 160,000 skulls, without even mentioning what he did to Damascus.


Edited by Penelope - 19-Apr-2008 at 08:55
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 19:53
Originally posted by Al Jassas

As for how people determined stats for how many died, well it isn't speculation, it is done by careful estimantion based on tax records. For example, Iraq was known to bring a kharaj of 100 million dirhams prior to the mongol invasion, after it it went as low as 10 million. Kharaj calculation is simple, every household owning a farm was to pay 10% of its income to the state. By careful estimation and knowing cetain facts it was concluded that Iraq had approximately 10 million people before the invasion and it went down to 2million after it. Of course there were several plagues that contributed much to this great downfall but in the end it is safe to say that some 2-5 million actually died directly, by killing, or indirectly, starvation, from the conquest just in Iraq. Baghdad was a large urban city by that time and it was about a fourth of its current size, there are 5 million currently living there.
 
AL-Jassas


however i have to disappoint you here. the number of taxpayers doesn't perfectly equal the number of residents, particularly after an invasion when people can't pay taxes due to puillage and destruction, as wlel as the lack of tax collectors due to breakdown of central government. therefore the valid nubmers for post-Mongolic Iraq are by all events unknown.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 20:40
Hello Temujin
 
I never said that the land taxes (which by the way indicates only rural residents not urban ones) were taken the next year after Iraq fell, the first number is c. 1250. The last number is c. 1280 long after the mongols have settled and the government established. Iraq remained fairly stable for quite a long time after the conquest (till about the 1310s) and Baghdad was resettled as well as much of the rest of Iraq. Turkmen moved into the country in quite large numbers so did many Arab tribes from the peninsula., so if there is any problems with the estimation, it is most probably an underestimation not an overestimation.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042 		  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-May-2008 at 07:35

Another notible mention would be the crusader Sack of Constantinople in 1204. The warriors of the 4th crusade invaded and conquered the Eastern Orthodox Christian city and it has been described as the most profitable and disgraceful sacking in history, though it wasnt completely wiped off of the planet. The fact that Pope John Paul II twice expressed sorrow for it, shows us that the effects of the sacking continue to ripple down to this very day and age. The pope reportedly felt the need to apologize for the terrible slaughter perpetuated by the warriors of the 4th Crusade.
Back to Top
Sergeant113 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 18-Apr-2008
Location: Vietnam
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29 		  Quote Sergeant113 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2008 at 07:12
   Before the capture of Constantinople, when the crusaders were still allied to emperor Alexius IV:
  " A few drunken crusaders, started attacking a Saracen mosque and the people praying within it. Many Byzantine citizens came to the help of the beleaguered Saracens. Meanwhile many of the Italian residents of the merchants quarters rushed to the aid of the crusaders once the violence spiralled out of control.
In all this chaos a fire broke out. It spread very quickly and soon great tracts of the city stood in flames. It lasted for eight days, killing hundreds and destroying a strip three miles wide running right through the middle of the ancient city."
   After Alexius IV was usurped, the crusaders turned on their ally and captured Constantinople:
   "Thousands of defenseless civilians were killed. Women, even nuns, were raped by the crusading army and churches, monasteries and convents were looted. The very altars of churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by warriors who had sworn to fight in service of the Christian faith"
So the sack of Constantinople kind of  happened before the capture of the city commited by its own allies. Thus, this is probably the most treacherous city sacking in the entire history.
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042 		  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2008 at 19:36
Yes, and ironically, the city and its inhabitants suffered far more at the hands of the christian crusaders, than they did at the hands of Sultan Mehmed The Conqueror.
Back to Top
Sergeant113 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 18-Apr-2008
Location: Vietnam
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29 		  Quote Sergeant113 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2008 at 08:26
Well, Constantinople was at its height when the crusaders sacked it, whereas the Turks captured it when it had already been declining. I think the Turks simply didn't have very much to destroy or loot.   
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 17:35
got to be one of the two A bombs although as rider said not the biggest in terms of % but the number are huge thats without even considering the after affects and that is something that cannot be atributed to many sackings as some cities will have recovered fairly quickly  
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042 		  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 01:59
Sergeant113 and 02bburco, very good points.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175 		  Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 12:50
The sacking of the bulgarian capital of Pliska in 811 by the Byzantine army led by the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus I was really bloody.The byzantine soldiers threw the babies in the windmill,where they were smashed by the big stone,which smashed the grain.Quite sadistic i would say...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.031 seconds.