5 ms·

5 seconds of Googling reveals: >On July 4, 1187, the Muslim forces of Saladin (Salah al-Din) decisively defeated the crusader army south of the Horns of Hattin

5 seconds of Googling reveals: >On July 4, 1187, the Muslim forces of Saladin (Salah al-Din) decisively defeated the crusader army south of the Horns of Hattin in Palestine, capturing Guy, king of Jerusalem; Reginald of Châtillon, Saladin’s enemy whom he personally killed; over two hundred Knights Hospitaller and Templar Knightly Orders whom he ordered to be killed; and many crusaders whom he ransomed. The remaining captured Christians were sold on the local slave markets. [1] Such a friendly guy, that Saladin! Your attempt to draw some great moral distinction between evil Christian and good Muslims is massively confused and, given its underlying intent to delegitimize certain religious/ethnic groups today, actually nauseating. The reality is that pretty much everyone involved in the Muslim conquests, the Crusades, the Muslim re-conquests, and all conflicts of that era were absolutely brutal. Mohammed himself ordered and carried out countless torture sessions, battles, and massacres, of soldiers and civilians. So as did the Romans and the Franks and everyone else. If they were ever merciful, on any occasion, it was not for moral reasons, but strategic/political ones. The ancient world is brutal. Stop trying to manipulate stories from it to stir up hate towards peoples' identities today. We have enough things to fight about already. [1] http://www.history.com/topics/saladin http://www.history.com/topics/saladin

_jgdh 9y ago
I'm glad you did your 5 seconds of googling - but the distinction I was drawing was the difference in treatment meted out to combatants and non-combatants. Saladin sold soldiers into slavery. He spared civilians. The Crusaders made no such distinction. Yes, slavery sucked but between mass murder and selling into slavery, the latter was the lesser of the two evils in the 12th century. The alternative - allowing enemy combatants to go free was ruinous, you would face them in battle again within a few years. I request that you judge Saladin by the standards of his time, just as I judge the First Crusaders by the standards of their time. At a time when it was common to demonize your enemy for anything they did, Latin sources had an extremely high opinion of Saladin. Archbishop William of Tyre, the primary source for this period, spoke of him in glowing terms, especially of the mercy shown during the siege of Jerusalem. I completely agree that the Crusades were filled with atrocities committed by every single person involved, regardless of religion. I was merely pointing out that even by the standards of the 12th century, those who used the battle cry "Deus Vult" during the sieges of Antioch and Jersalem were far worse than their contemporaries. When people today echo this battle cry, it is exactly this kind of behaviour that they are implicitly endorsing.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  >When people today echo this battle cry, it is exactly this kind of behaviour that they are implicitly endorsing. No. It may be that you interpret it that way, but that's on you. The same way as if you get triggered by the Latvian fire cross or similar examples elsewhere.
- baud147258 9y ago
  Archbishop William of Tyre was the neighbor of Saladin, so it might have been just praise to avoid being next to be sold in slavery?
  - _jgdh 9y ago
    No. William grew up at a time when the Kingdom of Jerusalem was strong and was Archbishop between 1127-1135. At no point was William ever in danger from Saladin. Saladin actually captured very little territory from the Crusader states until 1187, when a decisive battle was fought and he captured most of the Levant. William would have had reason to fear him then, but he had passed away the previous year. Also, Saladin did not sell anyone into slavery as long as they paid a ransom - a measly 10 dinars. Anyone who paid was allowed to leave Jerusalem with all of their possessions. When the Patriarch of Jerusalem tried to leave the city weighed down with treasures, Saladin was advised to keep most of it but he took nothing except the 10 dinars and let the Patriarch leave with the rest of his wealth. Saladin did not want to break the promise he had made - that anyone who paid the ransom was free.
- Banthum 9y ago
  As I mentioned, each side simply did the thing best for themselves based on their circumstances at the time. Crusaders did not have any easily accessible slave markets to sell their captives to, since unlike Muslims they were not practicing mass open slavery at the time, they were far from home, and the captured people were very numerous. So they killed them. This was their most self interested choice possible. The Muslims had access to liquid, nearby slave markets, and the captives were fewer, so they sold them. This was the most sold interested outcome possible. To do anything else would be to throw away war profits. To break a promise of clemency in exchange for surrender would be to make future battles more difficult. To try to set this up as some fundamental moral difference is deeply disingenuous and indicates some deeper level of motivated reasoning intended to de-legitimize one group in particular.

_jgdh 9y ago

I'm glad you did your 5 seconds of googling - but the distinction I was drawing was the difference in treatment meted out to combatants and non-combatants. Saladin sold soldiers into slavery. He spared civilians. The Crusaders made no such distinction. Yes, slavery sucked but between mass murder and selling into slavery, the latter was the lesser of the two evils in the 12th century. The alternative - allowing enemy combatants to go free was ruinous, you would face them in battle again within a few years. I request that you judge Saladin by the standards of his time, just as I judge the First Crusaders by the standards of their time. At a time when it was common to demonize your enemy for anything they did, Latin sources had an extremely high opinion of Saladin. Archbishop William of Tyre, the primary source for this period, spoke of him in glowing terms, especially of the mercy shown during the siege of Jerusalem. I completely agree that the Crusades were filled with atrocities committed by every single person involved, regardless of religion. I was merely pointing out that even by the standards of the 12th century, those who used the battle cry "Deus Vult" during the sieges of Antioch and Jersalem were far worse than their contemporaries. When people today echo this battle cry, it is exactly this kind of behaviour that they are implicitly endorsing.

literallycancer 9y ago
>When people today echo this battle cry, it is exactly this kind of behaviour that they are implicitly endorsing. No. It may be that you interpret it that way, but that's on you. The same way as if you get triggered by the Latvian fire cross or similar examples elsewhere.
baud147258 9y ago
Archbishop William of Tyre was the neighbor of Saladin, so it might have been just praise to avoid being next to be sold in slavery?
- _jgdh 9y ago
  No. William grew up at a time when the Kingdom of Jerusalem was strong and was Archbishop between 1127-1135. At no point was William ever in danger from Saladin. Saladin actually captured very little territory from the Crusader states until 1187, when a decisive battle was fought and he captured most of the Levant. William would have had reason to fear him then, but he had passed away the previous year. Also, Saladin did not sell anyone into slavery as long as they paid a ransom - a measly 10 dinars. Anyone who paid was allowed to leave Jerusalem with all of their possessions. When the Patriarch of Jerusalem tried to leave the city weighed down with treasures, Saladin was advised to keep most of it but he took nothing except the 10 dinars and let the Patriarch leave with the rest of his wealth. Saladin did not want to break the promise he had made - that anyone who paid the ransom was free.
Banthum 9y ago
As I mentioned, each side simply did the thing best for themselves based on their circumstances at the time. Crusaders did not have any easily accessible slave markets to sell their captives to, since unlike Muslims they were not practicing mass open slavery at the time, they were far from home, and the captured people were very numerous. So they killed them. This was their most self interested choice possible. The Muslims had access to liquid, nearby slave markets, and the captives were fewer, so they sold them. This was the most sold interested outcome possible. To do anything else would be to throw away war profits. To break a promise of clemency in exchange for surrender would be to make future battles more difficult. To try to set this up as some fundamental moral difference is deeply disingenuous and indicates some deeper level of motivated reasoning intended to de-legitimize one group in particular.