Originally posted by K Von Doom
I consider Saladin to be the MOST honourable figure of the Crusades - much more than the Nur Al Din, Richard I, Frederick and Godfrey - but even he was subject to the rules of war. In the siege of Jerusalem, Saladin's army broke through the walls so Belian of Ibelin rode out to try and sue for the city's surrender. Saladin said that he's already taken the city by storm so depriving his men of the customary "rape and pillage" (that came with storming a city) would be wrong.Not all prisoners were treated in good manner when captured by Saladin, high ranking prisoners and common people were but Templars and Hospitallers were killed instantly because of their religious fervour. He personally even lopped of Reginald of Kerak's head (although the guy deserved it).
Of course he did things like that, he could not avoid it... Nor could anybody else at that time, but fact still remains like you said he did try to prevent it or minimalize it. And unlike the Christian nations who just killed, raped or tortured any Muslim they could get their hands on he did show mercy to a lot of people...
Originally posted by Fishy
Of course he did things like that, he could not avoid it... Nor could anybody else at that time, but fact still remains like you said he did try to prevent it or minimalize it. And unlike the Christian nations who just killed, raped or tortured any Muslim they could get their hands on he did show mercy to a lot of people...
That's my point, so to say that "Saladin especially did not allow his troops to do anything like that" is incorrect.
However, in general, the Christian Crusaders were more barbaric and warlike compared to the Muslims - just compare the two main generals in the Third Crusade: Richard is remembered for his military skills, Saladin is remembered for his generosity.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Muslims had a special way of torture - Turks more like, Im not sure for the rest.And thats putting people on the stake - they did it so that stake avoids all the major organs inside, so the torture could last a day or two before the victim dies.
The ottoman empire wasn't even a real power during the crusades...
Not to mention that those techniques were used later on and stolen by the romanians... Who put it threw the rest of the western world.. Or was it the other way around? I don't even remember, fact still remains the Muslims of that time or at least the most important muslim leader of that time was very civil. They would not have been would they have wanted revenge, they wanted peace and they wanted to keep their own lands... They were more then ready to fight for it. And they did, and won.
Originally posted by Fishy
I don't even remember, fact still remains the Muslims of that time or at least the most important muslim leader of that time was very civil.
Saladin may be the most famous but it was the Mamluks under Baybars that actually drove the Franks out of Palestine... and we wasn't as civil as Saladin, but a great general and also defeated an invading Mongol army.
Originally posted by K Von Doom
Saladin may be the most famous but it was the Mamluks under Baybars that actually drove the Franks out of Palestine... and we wasn't as civil as Saladin, but a great general and also defeated an invading Mongol army.
He wasn't the most important, afteral Saladin did become Kaliph
Originally posted by Fishy
He wasn't the most important, afteral Saladin did become Kaliph
You're referring to when Saladin became Sultan of Egypt? He was never the Caliph. The Caliphate of Baghdad, the centre of Muslim power, actually regarded Saladin as an usurper. I didn't say Baybar's was the most important but he achieved what Saladin set out to do - kick the Franks out of Palestine. Saladin managed to retake Jerusalem, Acre and the other cities occupied by the Europeans but lost some cities when Richard arrived, a truce was made afterwards then Richard left. Years later, Jerusalem was given back to the Franks via a deal between the Sultan of Egypt and Emperor Frederick.