Not really, wars between Christian states prior to the reformation were generally tame by comparison (obviously there were many exceptions). It's partly due to the reasons you've mentioned: total war and complete conquest were rare so you didn't want to be too extreme when raiding your neighbors territory since even if you don't get to keep it you might be the target next year.
Also there was this chivalry thing about avoiding to kill your opponents and treating them fairly after they were captures. Obviously this mainly applied to knights, the rich and the upper class. But paroling or holding ordinary soldiers for ransom was not rare either (due to reciprocity and because it was profitable) since most soldiers were professionals fighting for money and not poor peasants.
The church generally was a moderating influence as well (as long as the war wasn't against heretics or heathens).
Mongols on the other hand were extremely cruel even by the standards of the day (generally even the crusaders were much more tame in comparison)
Well the Byzantines had localized genocide/extremely violent pogrom targeting all the Latins/Italians living in Constantinople a few decades ago. This combined with various other real or perceived slights made the 4th Crusade a bit more ambiguous.
It's not like that justifies the sack but the Byzantines are definitely partially to blame for the animosity that had arisen between the east and west following the first crusade. Especially considering that they together with the pope pretty much started the entire crusade movement (the first crusade was supposed to just be a relief expedition to liberate the recently lost Roman territories in Anatolia).
The most telling example of this is the fact that the Egyptians and Crusaders had a ceasefire during the Mongol attempt to invade Egypt and the fact that the Crusaders did not join the horde.
Comments
Not really, wars between Christian states prior to the reformation were generally tame by comparison (obviously there were many exceptions). It's partly due to the reasons you've mentioned: total war and complete conquest were rare so you didn't want to be too extreme when raiding your neighbors territory since even if you don't get to keep it you might be the target next year.
Also there was this chivalry thing about avoiding to kill your opponents and treating them fairly after they were captures. Obviously this mainly applied to knights, the rich and the upper class. But paroling or holding ordinary soldiers for ransom was not rare either (due to reciprocity and because it was profitable) since most soldiers were professionals fighting for money and not poor peasants.
The church generally was a moderating influence as well (as long as the war wasn't against heretics or heathens).
Mongols on the other hand were extremely cruel even by the standards of the day (generally even the crusaders were much more tame in comparison)
Between Christian states sure, but tell it to the French Cathars or the Baltic pagans. Or heck, the Byzantines during the Fourth Crusade.
Well the Byzantines had localized genocide/extremely violent pogrom targeting all the Latins/Italians living in Constantinople a few decades ago. This combined with various other real or perceived slights made the 4th Crusade a bit more ambiguous.
It's not like that justifies the sack but the Byzantines are definitely partially to blame for the animosity that had arisen between the east and west following the first crusade. Especially considering that they together with the pope pretty much started the entire crusade movement (the first crusade was supposed to just be a relief expedition to liberate the recently lost Roman territories in Anatolia).
The most telling example of this is the fact that the Egyptians and Crusaders had a ceasefire during the Mongol attempt to invade Egypt and the fact that the Crusaders did not join the horde.