The life of a slave was often as unbearable as a life can be. They could not be sure they will not be killed at any instant, without a warning, or tortured, or even forced to torture others.
Some slaves probably favoured death to their fate, and felt that even a slight chance at improvement was worth the risk. Perhaps they hoped they would be either killed or freed, and not tortured, and perhaps they would be tortured anyway by their cruel masters, In a way, for many escape was they only option that offered any sort of hope for a bearable life for them.
This is not a school question, is it? You are trivializing genocide. The way to do what you are asking, though, is to become informed and do well enough in school so that you can become a political scientist of historian, so that you can have a real voice and be heard and influence people.
Start by googling the Armenian genocide. No, start by trying to answer why it's wrong to say what you just said. Look the word up.
According to the passage context, Cazel's point of view of the Crusades is a period of the economic boom in the money market.
This is evident when he stated that "the borrowing and lending necessary for most crusaders stimulated credit formation and the development of credit institutions and instruments."
Cazel's argument about the economic situation that resulted from the Crusades is that the economic situation boosted the real estate market and benefited the bourgeoises of the Crusades period majorly.
One way the 12th-century economy affected the development of the Crusades is that the period's activities led to inflation.
This is evident when he stated that "the transformation of gold and silver altar ornaments into coin for crusaders may have helped heighten the inflation that occurred during the Crusades.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that Cazel tried to explain his perspective of Crusaders' activities in terms of the ongoing economic activities.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/22134448
