Garrison Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

Two names that ALL Cubans will agree bring shame on Havana, Cuba, are:1- Fulgencio Batista, the dictator that was overthrown by Fidel Castro in 1959;2- And General Valeriano Weyler, the second to last Spanish governor that ruled Cuba when the Island was still a Spanish colonial possession, who fought Cuban pro-independence insurgents with a brutality reminiscent of the Nazis, including setting up concentration camps, executing captured insurgents out of hand, burning farms and villages indiscriminately to deny food and shelter to the rebels and even shooting unarmed civilians in reprisal for attacks on Spanish garrisons.Agreement is bound to stop there, because anti-communist Cubans will add Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro and Ernesto “Che” Guevara to the list, whereas pro-Castro Cubans will hail the last three as patriots and heroes.

First, Richard did NOT execute the “civilian population” of Acre. The terms of the surrender were as follows:The garrison was to be granted their lives and allowed to depart without their weapons, in exchange for Saladin paying 200,000 Saracen gold pieces, returning the relic that the Franks believed was a fragment of the cross on which Christ was crucified (the "True Cross"), and -- significantly -- returning 2,500 of the prisoners taken at Hattin.The importance of the last point of negotiation is consistently overlooked in modern accounts, but the Lyon Continuation of William of Tyre's history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem -- the chronicle most likely based on a source written by a native of that Kingdom rather than a cleric sitting thousands of miles away and decades later -- notes that the terms of the agreement called for Saladin to "release one Christian that he held in prison for every Saracen they had captured in the city."To ensure that Saladin upheld his part of the bargain, an estimated 2,500 men (accounts vary) from the garrison were held as hostages. It is important to note that these hostages were not women or children, not innocent civilians. The civilian population of Acre had been Christian and allowed to depart with their movable goods at the surrender of Acre to Saladin in 1187. They had been replaced by a military garrison of Egyptian troops loyal to Saladin. The extent to which this garrison had wives, concubines and slaves with them in Acre in 1191 to make their life more comfortable is unclear but also irrelevant. Such slaves were not considered particularly valuable and so they were NOT held as hostages for Saladin’s compliance with the terms of the treaty. Note again that the people killed on Richard’s orders were not prisoners; they were hostages.According to the rules of war at this time, their lives were forfeit if the terms of the surrender agreement were not met. Saladin, possibly because he had not been consulted about the terms the garrison negotiated, or possibly because he couldn't raise the money or find the hostages or didn't have the True Cross any longer, failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. He asked for first one extension and then a second, but still failed to deliver.The crusaders and Christian clergy had come out in great pomp to receive the True Cross and welcome home fathers, brothers, wives and daughters from captivity only to be disappointed. When Saladin failed to deliver the prisoners a third time "there was great sorrow among the Christians; many tears were shed on that day, and all the men of the host were greatly troubled." (Lyon Continuation of William of Tyre, 125). There was also considerable dissatisfaction with the Christian leadership (namely Richard and the Duke of Burgundy) who had, from the perspective of the troops, been duped by Saladin.It was after this night during which the troops had been very vocal in their anger that Richard gave the orders to execute the hostages.We will never know why Richard made the decision he did, but there were a number of sound military and political reasons for executing the hostages. First, Richard needed to restore morale and respect for his leadership among the diverse volunteers that made up the crusading force. (Most of the crusaders were not his vassals and could not be commanded; they had to be persuaded to follow him.) Second, he needed to start moving on the true objective (Jerusalem)--so long obscured by the siege of Acre, and he could not do that with 2,500 Saracen fighting men still in Acre inviting an attack on his rear. Third, and most important, he needed to signal to Saladin that he was not to be trifled with -- that he was a dangerous foe.Richard achieved all three of these objectives, but at a high price to his reputation. To this day, the massacre of hostages at Acre is almost always cited by Richard's detractors as an act of "barbarism." It was far from that, but it was an act of cold-blooded realpolitik in a brutal age.For a complete essay on Richard’s siege of Acre see: The Siege of Acre II -- Of Kings and Massacres

No. Largely because China made it adamantly clear, “Keep your promise to give it back peacefully, or we’ll take it back by force if necessary.” Britain had NO ability to keep the territory against a Chinese invasion.Re: “The UK had quite a large garrison of troops there and attacking Hong Kong would’ve damaged China’s reputation.”Quite large wouldn’t be large enough. And it wouldn’t have damaged the Chinese reputation. China would have made it incredibly painful to continue its presence there if the UK had broken its treaty agreement. Even if China wouldn’t have invaded, it would have isolated Hong Kong and destroyed its economy.