And you would still be wrong.
There was a sack. Not as Fulcher described it.
Oh, I guess the fact that he was there and saw it first hand doesn't lend any credibility to his account.
Are you dense or just willfully ignorant.
Any intelligent person knows that eyewitness accounts can vary. Historians’ rule no. 1 is to evaluate all sources critically.
Calling me names doesn’t change the fact that you are the one violating the basic FR principle: evaluate things critically.
All I said is that most historians do not take Fulcher literally. They have discovered Muslim eyewitness sources that contradict him.
They are just being historians. You are being obstinate.