WI if crusaders do not sack Jerusalem in the 1st crusade?

WI they spare the lives of its inhabitants? Would this have any important consequence? Could these gained the crusaders the support of local Christians and others? Or was the religious divede between Catholics and Monosophists too big? Could this have given more time to the Crusaders states? Would this have had any other consequence worht mentionning?
 

Ace_General

Banned
Do you really think they wouldn't

They would kinda be like my crazy and easily pissed off football team times 1000 or so

And I don't think my buds wouldn't trash a city after walking 1000 miles and fighting through several fourgin nations.

Heck, they would probably be shouting 'GET SOME' in french when they were massacring the city:D
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Actually, there are sources that say that although there was looting and murdering it wasn't the genocide most people think it was.
 
Really? A book I read said the streets ran with blood up to people's knees (which is probably an overexaggeration) However I wouldn't be surprised to see tons of people killed just for the hell of it.
 
Urusai[InFi];2271047 said:
Really? A book I read said the streets ran with blood up to people's knees (which is probably an overexaggeration) However I wouldn't be surprised to see tons of people killed just for the hell of it.
Probably? The streets ran with several feet of blood, and you think there is even a possibility that it is not an exaggeration?


I think a good way to avoid the sack would be for the crusaders to fail totally at taking Jerusalem. Sure, it means the crusades fail earlier than in OTL, but IMO that is good for all involved.
 
Top