Let's differentiate between two concepts: a participant in the Crusade and a person from the 21st century who puts themselves in that participant's shoes. The answers will be completely different accordingly. In the 11th-12th centuries, the problem of humanism didn't exist. Any knight could kill a child, a woman, or an old man without hesitation, even themselves, if necessary. On the other hand, during the First Crusade, a commander's order for a knight was more of a recommendation than a strict instruction. Therefore, a knight from the First Crusade would kill captured Saracens without hesitation, even without an order. Can you imagine their state when they were walking through the desert, without food or water, under constant attacks from Muslims? When they stormed Jerusalem, there was such a massacre; they killed everyone, regardless of gender or age. So, as a participant in the First Crusade, I would kill without hesitation. Now, let's consider another situation. I IMAGINE myself as a participant in the First Crusade. I have a certain upbringing, certain stereotypes. That is, everyone around me says that you shouldn't kill children. What could the answer be to the question? Of course: "Save them, risking my life." Everyone knows that this is the "right" answer. And it's easy to reason while sitting at home in front of a computer, knowing that you won't actually suffer. It's easy to be brave from a distance. And even be a "civilized" person. And therefore, my answer is: I would kill without hesitation, even before the commander's order. They practically didn't take prisoners at all; what would they do with them in the desert? They killed everyone and killed everything, regardless of their beliefs.