Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
4,575
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Thanks, you've certainly done your homework. I seem to recall there was another view for this that I had heard. Basically, Saladin was stalling. He wanted to consolidate his forces and knew that Richard couldn't march forward if he had to look after and feed 2,700 prisoners. He feared Richard's army (and rightly so when you see what happened the few times they directly fought) and wanted do whatever it took to put as many conditions in his favor as possible. Richard was ready to head towards Jerusalem pretty much immediately, especially due to his limited resources, and wasted no time once he killed the prisoners. There wasn't much time to achieve his objective. In the end, Richard signed a treaty without taking Jerusalem for that reason. He didn't have the supplies any longer to make it a reality. Also, usually if someone is cruel and sadistic, it appears throughout their military campaigns. That it occurred once usually means there were other reasons, as noted above. Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:33, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, you've certainly done your homework. I seem to recall there was another view for this that I had heard. Basically, Saladin was stalling. He wanted to consolidate his forces and knew that Richard couldn't march forward if he had to look after and feed 2,700 prisoners. He feared Richard's army (and rightly so when you see what happened the few times they directly fought) and wanted do whatever it took to put as many conditions in his favor as possible. Richard was ready to head towards Jerusalem pretty much immediately, especially due to his limited resources, and wasted no time once he killed the prisoners. There wasn't much time to achieve his objective. In the end, Richard signed a treaty without taking Jerusalem for that reason. He didn't have the supplies any longer to make it a reality. Also, usually if someone is cruel and sadistic, it appears throughout their military campaigns. That it occurred once usually means there were other reasons, as noted above. Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:33, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
And valid your points are. I didn’t say “sadistic”. To me that is a step or so further and implies enjoyment. (His younger brother was that. I’ll be coming to him shortly, but I’ll do Stephen next). And you may be right – Saladin may have been playing smart. He seemed to be more of a politician than Richard.
Look; I am quite happy to change the “cruelty” charge to “ruthless.” I think that in my heart I like Richard. I grew up with Scott, and Robin Hood, and it is difficult to get that romantic chivalric figure out of my perception. So I was not putting a POV (shall we say) with that sentence. But he did order the cold-blooded murder of 2700 prisoners for whatever reason. Then again, I am a great believer in “the context of the age”, so I have to think that most commanders may have done the same. I remember that some time in my innocent teens half a century ago I was upset when I read of this incident in one of those multi-volume histories of the crusades.
I’m waffling, so I’ll stop. I am happy to change the article, as I am for any change in any article that increases the “factuality” and thereby the worth of it. It is how it should be.
I will put some points concerning my articles on my user page later today or over the weekend. (It is 6:15 am here!)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)