Originally Posted by EMPORORK
yeah i agree with ceaser almost everyone did it. unless a ransom could be paid. that is what probably made this the age of chivalry. it is that people could return to their families unscathed..... as long as they had the money.
but Saladin was more noble then the other 2. he may have killed captives but he freed more than that. hell he even ransomed out the whole of Jerusalem christian population. where as he could have simply massacred them. so i think he gets points for dignity and sportsmanship.
Does letting more live than one executes make it different then? The execution of prisoners be they of great number or small number is still the execution of prisoners.
It was his initial intention to massacre the defenders of Jerusalem, during negotiations with the Franks...
| When they spoke of this to the Sultan, he refused their request and said "I will treat you only as you treated the inhabitants when you conquered it in the year 491, by killing, enslaving and requiting evil with evil |
hard negotiation by Balian of Ibelin and a need to complete the siege quickly determined the matter. Practicalities less than magnanimosity.