Quote:
Originally Posted by TarJak
We westerners would NEVER use terror would we?  /sarcasm
Of course the Crusaders spread goodwill, love and peace wherever they went in the name of JC.  Oh look it's also in the Bible.  Nice try to incite religious hatred, but nice fail also. |
Check the history books better. I recommend Rodney Stark's "God's Batallions. The Case for the Crusades" for starting. There is a reaosn why it has gotten such good criticism both in America and Germany. Not by historical relativisers, however- which is a compliment in itself, I would say.
Grrr. One of those many books that just drowned during the big flood we had three weeks ago...
As have been told before, in past years, when Saladin still was in service of some Syrian king, he already massacred captured noble men, although he had solid logistic paths, water, food, and no military thread in his back. In those days it was common habit both in the West and East that armies and noble when who were captured, were traded for gold instead of killing them. That Saladin did not do that, was meant as a message to Europe. Later, when he had become the "liberator" of Jerusalem (liberating? wasnt that once a Roman/Jewish city?) he acted more pragmatically again, sometimes selling prisoners as slaves, sometimes trading them for gold and releasing them, sometimes doing otherwise. This did not prevent a monumental glorification process getting started. But the mythology about the man hardly matches the historical figure, which was - as already said - more pragmatic and profance. BTW, he is known in the Weatern world not only as a great noble king, but also as a merciless suppressor of any reforming movement and alterntive thinking. That he nevertheless became subject of massive transifiguraiton esoecially in the West, was not disturbed by his merciless determination, however.
Good book also is by Francesco Gabrieli, which is available in German and English: "Arab historians of the Crusades". Not because all is correct in it. But because it sheds some revealing light on Arab views and assessments of the crusades and the way some figures, like Saladin, get interpreted and seen (and mystified). Another book of mine that went down the drain recently...
Later, when he had captured "Ordensritter" after the battle at Hattin, which were known for their unlikeliness to ever give up their faith and so could not be turned to Islam, , he not only executed them , but left them to a fanatical mob that massacred them in an especially cruel way. Bya this he wanted to break the moral backbone of the Order, and wanted to sow fear and wavering in the hearts of other knights of that order.
Later, Richard Lionheart landed in the unholy land. When fighting his way towards Jerusalem, he had a big victory somewhere, and captured many enemy soldiers. He held them captured - until he started to move to Jerusalem. He then gave the order to execute the prisoners, all of them.
You wonder what the difference is?
Different to the Muslim armies, who had open supply lines and close supply bases, the European armies had this luxury NOT. Their superior armour and tactics compensated for the numerical inferiority. Still problem of long supply lines remained, and the time delay when reinforcing. Richard could not afford the risk to suddenly have a huge hostile force in his vulnerable rear when heading for Jerusalem and leaving the prisoners and some guards behind, the risk was too high. And so he ordered what the logic of war demanded.
The book ends with the myth that all noble men went to the crusade just to become rich and powerful. Most ruined their families' finances and caused debts for their next of kin to just pay for their equipment and the voyage there. Many stranded in the forign country, not being able to manage their trip back home - having run out of money and drowning in debts so they found nobody giving them credit.
Also, there was a fundamental difference in mentality, one that is valid and often totally mignored until today: The European knights fought for saving their individual life. The Muslims often fought with an attitude of completely dispising death, and not being scared to die.
Regarding your reference to the bible - in the West most people have learned to move beyond the sadism of the old testamenbt long time ago. Fundamentlaists demaind it to be taken literally, are minorities and excetions from the rule. Most people in the West do not care for it anymore, the churches also have seen historical developments that ahve chnaged them tremedneously and "officially", compared to that, and their ideolgioc basis, especially in case of the non-orthodx and non-catholic Protestants reflect that. There have been historicla eras that pushed the old dogma and scripture back into a small cell.
Show me a comparable development in the Islamic world. Show me where they have started to alter and move
beyond the Koran. Show me the reformation of the scripture like you see in the Bible by its division into old and new testament, new testament and Jesus' teachings. The division between Sunni and Shia in no way compares to the reofmraiton and the splitting of the Protestants from the Catholics. An era of enlightenment the Islamic world has never seen. A questioning fo the scripture like in the West, never has taken place. Show me where Muhammad preached the same spirit like Jesus did preach. where they have moived beyond the princiupal atttiude that they already held in the mediev al. I c annot see it. And I can compare the rural places of Iran, Turkey, Egypt and Algeria in the 90s by own experience with the population living in the bigger cities, where sometimes a bigger influence by Western culture indeed can be felt. And what I see is not a soft-washed Islam-light society anywhere, but a more or less hidden (back then) fundament of ultra hardcore conservatism and orthodox religiosity taking the Islamic teaching as literal as they were been taken a thousand years ago. By now, in case of Turkey, Algeria and Egypt, this should have become less hidden and more obviously a fact since then (its two decades ago, roughly, since I journeyed there for a long time).