The History of ChivalryJames, G. P. R. (George Payne Rainsford)
History
The History of Chivalry
James, G. P. R. (George Payne Rainsford)
Chivalry; Crusades
During the whole of the night the crusaders continued the massacre of
their enemies; and Albert of Aix[362] declares, that the following morning
they found they had slain many of their own countrymen by mistake. Such a
fact is not difficult to conceive of a body of men wandering without guide
through a hostile town, with the paths of which they were unacquainted. As
ever follows the violent capture of a large city, the soldiery first
satisfied themselves with bloodshed, and perhaps added some extra
cruelties to gratify their fanaticism, and then betook themselves to
plunder and debauchery; nevertheless, they committed not greater excesses
than we have seen perpetrated in days not very distant from our own, by
the troops of civilized nations, without the fiery stimulus of religious
zeal for a palliation.
I mean not to defend the cruelties of the crusaders, but I mean to say,
that they were not extraordinary in that age, or in any age that has yet
passed: God only knows what may be to come. The crusaders treated the
infidels as the infidels had often treated the Christians; and as
Christians, unhappily, have too often treated Christians like themselves.
Their plunder was not at all of a more atrocious kind than that which
attends every storm; and as to the hypocrisy[363] with which Mills charges
them, that writer quite loses sight of the spirit of the age on which he
writes, and metes men's actions by a standard that they never knew. The
crusaders were _not_ hypocrites, they were merely fanatics; and in the
relentless fury with which they pillaged, injured, and massacred the
Turks, they thought they did God as good and pleasing service as in
singing praises to him for the victory they had obtained. They were
fearfully wrong in their principle, it is true, but still they acted upon
principle, and therefore in this they were not hypocrites.
Baghasian, the Turkish prince of Antioch,[364] fled with a part of his
troops to the citadel, but finding that security could not long be found
within the walls of the town, he escaped alone to the mountains, where he
was waylaid by some Syrian Christians and slain. His head, with all the
venerable marks of extreme age, was struck off by his slayers, and
carried, with his rich sword-belt, into Antioch, where it proved an
acceptable present to the rude victors.
Though much spoil[365] of various kinds was found in Antioch, little that
could satisfy the cravings of hunger had been left by the Turks. They,
themselves closely blockaded, had been driven nearly to want; and the
Christians soon began to suffer from the very precautions they had
formerly taken against their enemies. In the first joy of their conquest,
too, the little discipline that ever existed in a chivalrous host was
completely relaxed, and before it could be sufficiently restored for
necessary measures to be taken in order to procure supplies, famine was in
the city, and the hosts of the Persian sultaun[366] encamped beneath the
walls.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account