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.
>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.
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.
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.
You appear to be quite wedded to the idea that "there were no bad guys, only a bad situation". Well, even among the Crusaders there were men who kept their word and men who didn't. For example, following the fall of Jerusalem the Fatimid garrison of Ascalon was only too ready to surrender, but they requested to negotiate the terms of their surrender to Raymond of Toulouse, the one man who kept his promises during the sack of Jerusalem. Unfortunately the other noblemen, who had had no compunctions killing people they had promised safe passage to, interfered in the negotiations and so Ascalon remained in Fatimid hands.
This is exactly what you pointed out - not keeping your promises and engaging in wanton butchery made future battles more difficult and yet there were men who did it anyway. Godfrey didn't do this, and neither did Saladin, and that meant they were a cut above the other men of that time. And that's not my 21st century opinion either, William of Tyre writing in the 12th century thought so too. There was a fundamental moral difference between Godfrey and his most of his fellow First Crusaders. _That_ is the point I'm trying to make, so when you say there was no fundamental moral difference, you're incorrect.
I have no interest in de-legitimizing any group apart from the far right. I do so by pointing out that they in 21st century, knowing all that I've pointed out, chose a battle cry used by butchers in the 12th century. I'm not Christian, I'm not Muslim, I'm not even remotely religious. I'm sorry you think I have an agenda against Christians in general, but that's just not true.
I think it would help discourse if you didn't immediately assume the worst possible intent when you see a comment by someone. Please consider doing that.
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.