Raynald was a significant figure in these conflicts. He fought. He killed. He died. This is the most accurate obituary the man can receive. A hero to some. A villain to others. War is never tidy, nor nice.
That's not a fair assessment at all. No matter how much it makes you feel good. You have to take into account the purpose of his actions. Choices given, choices made. The motivations and intent. Some causes are just and necessary, and some are not. Sometimes you do not have a choice other than kill or be killed (or watch the innocent suffer), and the choice to defend the innocent is always just. Go away with your self-gratifying oversimplifications.
You are over simplifying history too much, and ignoring people’s intent. SGTBender is correct with his criticism. Would it be honest to say Stalin was simply “hero to some, villain to others”?. I don’t think so. Stalin killed and ordered others be killed in his pursuit of power. Intent matters.
@donttouchthis56 well, let's see...the dictionary definition, as provided by Oxford's English Dictionary, of the word "honest" is, "free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere". Perhaps you, personally, believe this word to have an entirely different significance. I can't say, as your perspective is your own. Nonetheless, given the aforementioned, commonly-accepted definition of the word, and provided that there is at least one person in existence that truly considers Iosif Vissarionivich Dzhughashvili, a.k.a. "Stalin", to be a hero, and an additional person that truly considers him to be a villain--then, yes, that statement would an "honest" one. Of course, the implicit impracticality of the statement is it's very composition, consisting of the opinions of various persons, which are, by their nature, non-objective. The criteria by which one person judges the people around them will, inevitably, differ from the criteria by which a separate individual makes the same judgements. Therein lies the immitigable impediment, imported and implanted in your impartially impassioned, imprudently impulsive, immeasurably impotent, impossibly imbecilic, innately inane, profoundly puerile, astoundingly asinine, avidly acrimonious, aggravatedly aggressive agitation :D
Such an immense amount of knowledge and history to be learned through these lectures and podcast, thank you RCH for all the time and teaching shed to all of us
@@NightShooter87 Then they argue that their misconception is true because of a movie. Then when you prove it is no they look at you like their brain just got tied in a knot...trying not to believe you and keep their erroneous "knowledge".
@@heimdallwg2112 No conflicts here my friend, i am Jordanian myself and you are welcome to our country, it is a peaceful and a welcoming one for sure just avoid the taxi's lol due to the possibility of getting scammed and you'll have a blast here. hope you have a great time in Jordan!
one of the best sayings I have ever heard.. I paraphrase .. when the people who cannot or don't have the resources to investigate the truth cannot rely on the historian ............ then we have problems. 99% of our history.. thank you for RCH.
There was definitely a mistake made concerning Baldwin IV at the battle of Mont Gisard. Baldwin IV fought on horseback in the thick of the battle at Mont Gisard. It wasn't until later when the disease had weakened him more that he was carried on a litter when coming to the defense of the nobles at Kerak.
I enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven, but it's clear to me now Hollywood does not make historically accurate material - entertaining yes! Tolstoy said "History would be a wonderful thing if it were true!"
Actually, in his what I think an excellent description of the strategic and tactical military aspect of the first century of the Crusades, "The Armies of the Crusades; 1099 - 1187" by Steven Tibble, the actions of Reynaud de Châtillon are brought into the wider perspective of things, as indeed are discussed here. Reynaud was certainly more than the loose cannon he has often been portrayed as, and a far better tactician and strategist than most historians would have us believe. Thank you, gentlemen, for clarifying certain important aspects of this highly interesting character. 😊
First time I found out about Raynald du Chantillon's role in the crusades was when I played the Saladin campaign in Age of Empires 2 during my childhood... Guess what I learned back then xD
as for my view of the whole segment//// absolutely OUTSTANDING/... thank you... thank you..this one was somewhat personal for me.. and I thank you so much.. well done and so so appreciated ..
Historical character depiction in the Kingdom of heaven: Bailian: wrong, entirely Balduin IV: half correct, half wrong Guy: wrong, mostly Raynald: wrond, almost entirely Sibilla: wrong, entirely Saladin: half correct, half wrong Tiberius: not even the name is correct
Very interesting topic! Definitely changed how I view Raynald. My first impressions of him came from Dr. Helena P. Schrader’s Balian of Ibelin novels (in which he is a very bad, hateable character). In light of this, how accurate would you rate this book trilogy?
I liked the movie Kingdom of Heaven probably because when I watched it I knew nothing about the Crusades and it's what got me interested in that period in the first place. It's kind of like 300, if you're expecting accuracy you won't find it but it definitely helped get people interested in the real history.
Kingdom of heaven is a great movie. The costumes are stunning, the cast is great, and the acting is well done. When I started watching, I wasnt expecting accuracy. If I was expecting accuracy, I would have disappointed. 300 is a bit of a different story, some aspects are way over the top (warriors fighting in their underpants....)
@@krystofthepolishguytalksan310 Braveheart is to the public eye a great movie with a powerful message but it was very over the top. I prefered outlaw king, similar plot with a more accurate representation of history.
Very good segment. Most of my study has been on pre-Crusades history and the 1st Crudade, as well as The Reconquista and later Crusades. If there is a period of the Crusades lacking in my understanding and knowledge base it is during the Kingdom of Jerusalem period. Each time you do a video on this time period and the people involved, I learn a bit more.
Dear people of Real Crusades History, first of all thank you so much for all your interesting podcasts! Regarding this specific video about Raynald of Chatillon, I recently bought the book 'God's Wolf' by Jeffrey Lee, who is also trying to reshape and review the popular image of Raynald as a self-interested warmonger. I was wondering what you think of this book? Would you argue it is another popular read, or is it academically trustworthy? Kind regards, Marthe
Amazing podcast. After listening to majority of podcasts by RCH on the crusades and the different characters, and even listening to a separate podcast by RCH on Reynald.... this is pivotal!!! It changes alot about how we view ALL the characters around the ultimate fall of the Kingdom and the events leading up to Hattin. THIS podcast needs to be in the forefront of any analysis of the crusades before the others!!! Is there any way to do this? Also, at one point it does raise a question... at the Battle of Montgisard, Dr. Crawford mentions that the battle should really be a victory for Reynald rather than Baldwin IV. That is a bold statement. Perhaps it could be a subject of a future podcast.. Who was the real hero of Montgisard? I see that Reynald and Baldwin IV were very much similar in their thinking and strategies... they were close but of the same mind too.. Thanks again.
Well if you have different points of view about a person of history, then what it really tells you that there is some truth in both views. The people of this time were fanatics whether Christian or Muslin, both sides were cruel, plus the idea that you can go to someone else country and want to change things. So the Crusaders aren't exactly heroic.
@@rachelmiller9280 This is why history repeats itself self. There are always multiple points of view of a situation, and multiple different views once it is history.
@@jpmisterioman Well hell, on that point you can go back even further than this point in history and someone took it from someone else, doesn't make it right. But is does say that we have been hating on each other for a very long time.
I know that this is not exactly what you guys are about, but I have noticed a film that has been out for a few years now as the main source of pictures for most Crusades related videos which shows that it itself has a pretty significant influence on cultural impressions of the Crusades. The film is ARN it is a mini-series, but could you do a critique on it in the future?
I'd like to see Dr. Crawford's sources for his opinions on Raynald. He seems quick to judge William of Tyre's accounts without providing additional sources.
He's pointing out that you have to be careful because William was flatly biased against Raynald. William and Raynald were operating from opposite camps in the court, so it's no surprise that William demonizes Raynald. Indeed, William demonizes everyone from the opposite camp. This doesn't mean William is a bad source, just that we have to keep his biases in mind.
Real Crusades History understandable, but without citing sources that support his statements about Raynald it seems more like conjecture rather than research. Thanks for the response.
In regards to William of Tyre, one need not provide a source countering what he says to point out that he had certain biases which we must take into account when evaluating his claims. This isn't conjecture, it's just using a source wisely. Even in cases where we do not have sources that counter a certain claim, we must make note of the biases underlying a particular source. All medieval chronicles are written from a certain perspective and that always has to be noted. Everything Crawford is saying about Raynald is based on the exhaustive research he and Bernard Hamilton have been conducting. He'll have all the sources available in his upcoming book.
Real Crusades History I didn't mean to imply that William wasn't biased, only curious as to Dr. Crawford's sources and how he built his opinions. Looking forward to the book.
You want citations against an omnipresent, contemporary chronicle? Do you mean countering contemporary account? Read Hamilton's article, which Crawford mentions, Elephant of Christ or his book Crawford mentions. There you will find the sources you require.
Statistically speaking, everybody in Europe that’s alive today, if they are white, are descendants of Charlemagne. Every white person in England are also children of Edward III. Gene pools are larger than what people think....hence why race does actually matter.
I don't know if you guys miss dr. Odom as much as I do since his recent departure. His work of the North African Fathers is priceless.(The Christian Classic Commentaries)
Salahdin Al Ayubi was than and today famous for his wisdom, tactical knowledge and noble way treating prisoners. When the horse of Lion Heart was killed in Battle, Salahdin saw it and ordered to send him one of his horses. This is how Salahdin was.
Noble way of treating prisoners? Like the Templars and Hospitallars after Hattin? Like the population of Giza in 1170? The Saladin depicted these days owes more to Walter Scott's fictional romanticism of Saladin then any basis in fact.
Saladin was a man of his time and location. He could be magnanimous or brutal as the situation dictated. To think he was anything more or less is pure fiction. Look at the 18,000 people of Jerusalem who were dragged into slavery because they couldn't pay his ransom price, or the butchering of the Hospitallers and Templars following Hattin (amongst other examples). He was indeed a great man and his memory is worthy of respect, but he wasn't some sort of chivalric leader without a blemish on his record.
he doesn t come from northern France !he was from Chatillon Coligny where is located in center of France but there is controversy about his native land beacause we dont know much about his youth !!some say he could came from champagne (est of France ) but most historians are agree he was from chatillon Coligny and was related to Donzy 's family (strong and old french noble family)
I think the traitor was non other than gerard de ridefort the templar grand master. He is the one that lead 170 some of the most important knights in the whole of the kingdom into a fight he knew he could not win which got the most experienced templar knights out of the way and then saladin lets him live probably because of a deal they struck. Then he goes back to jerusalem and convinces the king in the middle of the night to march to hattin where he once again slips away unscathed and then saladin finally gets his hands on him again at acre and cuts off his head to keep the truth from ever coming out that he was a spy for saladin.
Very interesting and important podcast. Many good points here. However, I would note that Prof. Crawford overstates the factionalism in the kingdom of Jerusalem in the period before Hattin (if interested in the topic here's a longer article "A Kingdom Divided?" (defendingcrusaderkingdoms.blogspot.gr/2014/10/a-kingdom-divided.html)), and also errs in suggesting Baldwin IV was carried onto the battlefield of Montgisard in a liter. Leprosy is a degenerative disease and in Baldwin's case the aggressive deterioration was triggered -- as is often the case -- by puberty. At Montgisard Baldwin was just 16 and although he later in his reign was reduced to a liter, at Montgisard he led his armies on horseback. I look forward to Prof. Crawford's forthcoming book!
Thanks for the comment Dr. Schrader! I didn't catch anything about Baldwin being carried on a liter at Montgisard, I thought Dr. Crawford said he was carried on a liter at later events, but I would have to go back and listen again. But yes, absolutely, Baldwin was riding on horseback at Montgisard. And I agree, it was a very interesting podcast and much needed as well.
Correct, he says something like (I paraphrase) "people give credit to Baldwin IV rather than Chatillon for Montgisard, but that's not right because Baldwin was a leper and we know that later he had to be carried around in a liter." So technically, he doesn't say it was the case at Montgisard, but he dismisses Baldwin's role by referring to his later disability. Hamilton, by the way, is one of the strongest defenders of Baldwin IV so I suspect Dr. Crawford is just a little carried away by his (understandable) desire to defend Chatillon. It is very much time for a revision, and I look forward to Crawford's book -- but an adjustment of Chatillon's image doesn't have to come at the cost of Baldwin IV. I also think Crawford overstates the case for Tripoli being a traitor, by the way. Since Guy was a usurper, Tripoli was legally justified in refusing to do homage. It might be fun to do a pod-cast with both of discussing Tripoli at Hattin.
Thank you so much for saying that. I think it's criminal how people tend to focus only on Baldwin IV's disease and not how the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem was actually kept strong because of his actions.
Facial reconstruction of Reynald Chatillon based on / from reconstructed face of Anna Chatillon( Reynald' daughter) by Arpas Karoly-reconstructor ) She resembled him She looked like Reynald.Reconstructed face of Anna Chatillon in Hungarian museum
What persists in amazing me however is the legend of saladin. After thousands of years this man’s name still rings like a powerful scary bell. This video shows me they were all just regular guys! That lived and died trying to prove themselves and their legacies were determined only by the lives they lived and the ppl they inspired. Reynald may not be as bad and Saladin not as good as we may believe sometimes.
Why would anyone accept historical facts from a movie? I see this more and more in our current society. I would rather take the word of a historian like Dr. Crawford than Hollywoods flawed research which bends and molds historical facts to sell their movies.
ok .. this is my second time around watching you vids and well I will probably do it many more times. . this time around I caught something I did not notice before,, Raynald in his red sea move only did what the French and English (norman) always did for the most part.. not attack the army but hit the cities and towns to make the monarch seem weak. .. I can hardly call some one a historian who could not see this on the red sea move to push toward mecca.. Raynald just did as his folks always did, very easy to understand in that light, and obviously way too much ridley DA scott involved in folks thinking.
Much of the Crusades were very understandable and justified as defense and preservation of Christians not just ''Europeans'' but all Christians being able to have pilgrimage.
I tried to reconstruct face of Raynald Chatillon .I based on reconstructed face of Anna Chatillon ( Reynald' s daughter) We had two version of facial reconstruction of Anna/ Agnes Chatillon .I wrote in keywords; Namely 1 " Anna Chatillon" 2" " facial reconstruction of Agnes of Antioch " 3 " Folia antropologica Anna Chatillon" 4 "Arpas Karoly antropologia Anna " 5" Anna Chatillon magyar" 6" Megérkezek Fehévárra a királyi kiállitás " 7 " Egy nagy király emberi arca.III Bela" Photos of Bela III and Agnes Ann Chatillon I used 12 photos and photo editor ( change of gender , changer of Age, add mustache ,beard).Coin of Reynald 2777.Grandson: Andrew II of Hungary and grandadaughter Constance ( Constance porta coeli) .Who should play Raynald : Maurice Chevalier as Raynald Bearded Richard Briers ( Frankenstein,Much do about Nothing,Peter pan) Patrick Mcnee bearded ( Two's crowds, Fog, Sense of history, What butler saw) Hector Elizando bearded as Buffalo Bill in las Man standing) Hector Elizando as Raynald Chatillon? John Ashton as Raynald .Saladon send head od Reynald to Damascus .Dirhaim of Saladin .John Rhys-Davies , Ibrahim Tatlises, Yilmaz Erdogan as Saladin .
Reynald of Chatillon commanded the USS Iowa in the Dominion War. He fought off Jem Hadar battleships with photon torpedoes. Because of him the Federation had access to the Bajoran Wormhole.
Much like Saladin who brutalised what he saw as heretical Shia Muslims, Reynald's attacks on Greek and Armenian Christians wasn't against his particular sect of "Christians". Orthodox Christians were, according to Western Chrsitians, schismatics.
That’s the problem I have with this channel, vested interests. Just like the stories of Saladins “peaceful ways” defy logic, real people are neither heroes or villains. (They commit acts that are both, and might be more of one than the other, but overall it’s all just shades of grey) So why is it that Raynald has to be a hero or a villain? Was Saladin? Was Lionheart? Was anyone?
@@JDahl-sj5lk we already have the demonozed versions of christian lords, this pushback is necessary to balance and it so lazy masses dont just get the demonozed version. Gets the masses who cares to think.
The Kingdom of Heaven movie is very bad history. For one thing Balian of Ibelin was not an illigitimate child born in France. He was born in the Holy Land.
In one way I’m sad that the English were left out of the crusades because it’s great history but then on the other hand, it means the English are exonerated of all the controversy that goes along with it. It’s great learning about it though.
The English were a major part of the Crusades. They even had symbols added to the family crests of those who fought in the Crusades. Its easy to talk about the lords who fought the Crusades, but for each one of them were hundreds of soldiers as well.
Silly movie? I am not an historian, but I am knowledgeable of medieval warfare. The drama behind Raynald is hazy to me, but the storyline is not. 'Kingdom of Heaven' was (isn't) a silly movie. It is one of my favorite movies. It may not be 'spot on' historically accurate, but it is very entertaining and realistically rendered, as far as combat scenes. I don't know of any medieval movies that are historically accurate. 'Ironclad' is also on my favorites list. Know that I am a 'Lord of the Rings' (Peter Jackson) fan.
@@RealCrusadesHistory @real crusades history Your a humble host and I enjoy your podcasts. This is the 1st time I've ventured underneath them however. This reply was as honestly brutal as is was hilarious. It calls to mind a familiar quote "He's more machine now than man... "(Obi-wan).
Raynald was a significant figure in these conflicts. He fought. He killed. He died. This is the most accurate obituary the man can receive. A hero to some. A villain to others. War is never tidy, nor nice.
A very fair assessment.
That's not a fair assessment at all. No matter how much it makes you feel good.
You have to take into account the purpose of his actions. Choices given, choices made. The motivations and intent. Some causes are just and necessary, and some are not. Sometimes you do not have a choice other than kill or be killed (or watch the innocent suffer), and the choice to defend the innocent is always just. Go away with your self-gratifying oversimplifications.
You are over simplifying history too much, and ignoring people’s intent. SGTBender is correct with his criticism.
Would it be honest to say Stalin was simply “hero to some, villain to others”?. I don’t think so. Stalin killed and ordered others be killed in his pursuit of power.
Intent matters.
The replies to this comment are ridiculous... Calm down lol.
@donttouchthis56 well, let's see...the dictionary definition, as provided by Oxford's English Dictionary, of the word "honest" is, "free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere". Perhaps you, personally, believe this word to have an entirely different significance. I can't say, as your perspective is your own. Nonetheless, given the aforementioned, commonly-accepted definition of the word, and provided that there is at least one person in existence that truly considers Iosif Vissarionivich Dzhughashvili, a.k.a. "Stalin", to be a hero, and an additional person that truly considers him to be a villain--then, yes, that statement would an "honest" one. Of course, the implicit impracticality of the statement is it's very composition, consisting of the opinions of various persons, which are, by their nature, non-objective. The criteria by which one person judges the people around them will, inevitably, differ from the criteria by which a separate individual makes the same judgements. Therein lies the immitigable impediment, imported and implanted in your impartially impassioned, imprudently impulsive, immeasurably impotent, impossibly imbecilic, innately inane, profoundly puerile, astoundingly asinine, avidly acrimonious, aggravatedly aggressive agitation :D
Such an immense amount of knowledge and history to be learned through these lectures and podcast, thank you RCH for all the time and teaching shed to all of us
Thanks for listening
Films have been misleading people on countless occasions, by not bothering about historical facts and showing inaccuracies. Just look at Braveheart.
Or Agora or Alexander or Rome
People love lies, they can't be bothered to do research.
@@NightShooter87 Then they argue that their misconception is true because of a movie. Then when you prove it is no they look at you like their brain just got tied in a knot...trying not to believe you and keep their erroneous "knowledge".
Go visit Karac in Jordan, south east of Dead Sea . His fortress.
Amazing.
One of my dreams to see this
@@badtexasbill5261 Went last year - awesome place. Unlike KOH view.
@@petermercury4020 Is there no war or any conflicts present in the area? I'm planning to go as soon as this corona is over
@@heimdallwg2112 No conflicts here my friend, i am Jordanian myself and you are welcome to our country, it is a peaceful and a welcoming one for sure just avoid the taxi's lol due to the possibility of getting scammed and you'll have a blast here.
hope you have a great time in Jordan!
@@Boulad637 thank you friend. As I've said as soon as this situation is over, I'm coming to your country. Thank you for your response.
one of the best sayings I have ever heard.. I paraphrase .. when the people who cannot or don't have the resources to investigate the truth cannot rely on the historian ............ then we have problems. 99% of our history.. thank you for RCH.
Thank you, and well said!
Another great conversation!! I can't wait for Dr. Crawford to put out his book on the subject.
Which book?
There was definitely a mistake made concerning Baldwin IV at the battle of Mont Gisard. Baldwin IV fought on horseback in the thick of the battle at Mont Gisard. It wasn't until later when the disease had weakened him more that he was carried on a litter when coming to the defense of the nobles at Kerak.
I enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven, but it's clear to me now Hollywood does not make historically accurate material - entertaining yes! Tolstoy said "History would be a wonderful thing if it were true!"
Great video RCH. I really admire those who take the time and invest their skills to provide an honest and objective view of history.
Well said!
My favorite description of Raynald has to be from William of Tyre.
"For he was a man of violent impulses, both in sinning and repenting."
That description might not be very accurate, according to Dr. Crawford's research.
Maybe it's not, but it's still interesting to read about how Raynald's rivals described him.
Actually, in his what I think an excellent description of the strategic and tactical military aspect of the first century of the Crusades, "The Armies of the Crusades; 1099 - 1187" by Steven Tibble, the actions of Reynaud de Châtillon are brought into the wider perspective of things, as indeed are discussed here. Reynaud was certainly more than the loose cannon he has often been portrayed as, and a far better tactician and strategist than most historians would have us believe. Thank you, gentlemen, for clarifying certain important aspects of this highly interesting character. 😊
First time I found out about Raynald du Chantillon's role in the crusades was when I played the Saladin campaign in Age of Empires 2 during my childhood...
Guess what I learned back then xD
as for my view of the whole segment//// absolutely OUTSTANDING/... thank you... thank you..this one was somewhat personal for me.. and I thank you so much.. well done and so so appreciated ..
Historical character depiction in the Kingdom of heaven:
Bailian: wrong, entirely
Balduin IV: half correct, half wrong
Guy: wrong, mostly
Raynald: wrond, almost entirely
Sibilla: wrong, entirely
Saladin: half correct, half wrong
Tiberius: not even the name is correct
Tiberius - Raymond of Tripoli 💯
What a horrible track record. Even Braveheart was more accurate.
Source: trust me bro
Very interesting topic! Definitely changed how I view Raynald. My first impressions of him came from Dr. Helena P. Schrader’s Balian of Ibelin novels (in which he is a very bad, hateable character). In light of this, how accurate would you rate this book trilogy?
I liked the movie Kingdom of Heaven probably because when I watched it I knew nothing about the Crusades and it's what got me interested in that period in the first place. It's kind of like 300, if you're expecting accuracy you won't find it but it definitely helped get people interested in the real history.
Kingdom of heaven is a great movie. The costumes are stunning, the cast is great, and the acting is well done. When I started watching, I wasnt expecting accuracy. If I was expecting accuracy, I would have disappointed.
300 is a bit of a different story, some aspects are way over the top (warriors fighting in their underpants....)
You need to watch the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven. It's far superior to the theatrical version.
@@gavbrescu911 maybe he already did watch the director's cut?
@@bambostarla6259 I think Braveheart would be far better comparison!
@@krystofthepolishguytalksan310 Braveheart is to the public eye a great movie with a powerful message but it was very over the top. I prefered outlaw king, similar plot with a more accurate representation of history.
Very good segment. Most of my study has been on pre-Crusades history and the 1st Crudade, as well as The Reconquista and later Crusades. If there is a period of the Crusades lacking in my understanding and knowledge base it is during the Kingdom of Jerusalem period. Each time you do a video on this time period and the people involved, I learn a bit more.
Dear people of Real Crusades History, first of all thank you so much for all your interesting podcasts! Regarding this specific video about Raynald of Chatillon, I recently bought the book 'God's Wolf' by Jeffrey Lee, who is also trying to reshape and review the popular image of Raynald as a self-interested warmonger. I was wondering what you think of this book? Would you argue it is another popular read, or is it academically trustworthy? Kind regards, Marthe
Amazing podcast. After listening to majority of podcasts by RCH on the crusades and the different characters, and even listening to a separate podcast by RCH on Reynald.... this is pivotal!!! It changes alot about how we view ALL the characters around the ultimate fall of the Kingdom and the events leading up to Hattin. THIS podcast needs to be in the forefront of any analysis of the crusades before the others!!! Is there any way to do this? Also, at one point it does raise a question... at the Battle of Montgisard, Dr. Crawford mentions that the battle should really be a victory for Reynald rather than Baldwin IV. That is a bold statement. Perhaps it could be a subject of a future podcast.. Who was the real hero of Montgisard? I see that Reynald and Baldwin IV were very much similar in their thinking and strategies... they were close but of the same mind too.. Thanks again.
It's really remarkable just how much this guy was wronged by pop history.
Well if you have different points of view about a person of history, then what it really tells you that there is some truth in both views. The people of this time were fanatics whether Christian or Muslin, both sides were cruel, plus the idea that you can go to someone else country and want to change things. So the Crusaders aren't exactly heroic.
@@rachelmiller9280 exactly
@@rachelmiller9280 From the Christian pov, yes they were. Especially since most of their land was taken by the Turks.
@@rachelmiller9280 This is why history repeats itself self. There are always multiple points of view of a situation, and multiple different views once it is history.
@@jpmisterioman Well hell, on that point you can go back even further than this point in history and someone took it from someone else, doesn't make it right. But is does say that we have been hating on each other for a very long time.
I enjoy your clear, concise and entertaining content..thank you sir!
"I am Raynald of Chatillon!"
- Kingdom of Heaven
and then he gave the "kiss of peace"
whilst screaming like a lunatic in his cell that the gatekeeper just shuts the door on his face
The "kiss of peace" is given on the lips.
LOL if did not watch "Kingdom of Heaven" i would not be listening to this podcast!
edit: Thank you for having channel! i love this.
I know that this is not exactly what you guys are about, but I have noticed a film that has been out for a few years now as the main source of pictures for most Crusades related videos which shows that it itself has a pretty significant influence on cultural impressions of the Crusades. The film is ARN it is a mini-series, but could you do a critique on it in the future?
I'd like to see Dr. Crawford's sources for his opinions on Raynald. He seems quick to judge William of Tyre's accounts without providing additional sources.
He's pointing out that you have to be careful because William was flatly biased against Raynald. William and Raynald were operating from opposite camps in the court, so it's no surprise that William demonizes Raynald. Indeed, William demonizes everyone from the opposite camp. This doesn't mean William is a bad source, just that we have to keep his biases in mind.
Real Crusades History understandable, but without citing sources that support his statements about Raynald it seems more like conjecture rather than research. Thanks for the response.
In regards to William of Tyre, one need not provide a source countering what he says to point out that he had certain biases which we must take into account when evaluating his claims. This isn't conjecture, it's just using a source wisely. Even in cases where we do not have sources that counter a certain claim, we must make note of the biases underlying a particular source. All medieval chronicles are written from a certain perspective and that always has to be noted.
Everything Crawford is saying about Raynald is based on the exhaustive research he and Bernard Hamilton have been conducting. He'll have all the sources available in his upcoming book.
Real Crusades History I didn't mean to imply that William wasn't biased, only curious as to Dr. Crawford's sources and how he built his opinions. Looking forward to the book.
You want citations against an omnipresent, contemporary chronicle? Do you mean countering contemporary account? Read Hamilton's article, which Crawford mentions, Elephant of Christ or his book Crawford mentions. There you will find the sources you require.
Raynald of Châtillon My 25th Great grandfather.
Statistically speaking, everybody in Europe that’s alive today, if they are white, are descendants of Charlemagne. Every white person in England are also children of Edward III. Gene pools are larger than what people think....hence why race does actually matter.
Mine as well. Greetings, cousin.
Also my husband's 25th GG! :D Trying to figure out who the mother might be.
@@europeanbourgeois8223 he is my husband's 25GG also but my husband is from Mexico, lol.
How did you find that out?
I don't know if you guys miss dr. Odom as much as I do since his recent departure. His work of the North African Fathers is priceless.(The Christian Classic Commentaries)
Well in the movie Kingdom of Heaven they played him as a grotesque bully
Is Dr. Paul Crawford's book ready?
To God be glory, Amen+
Hello RCH, please explain also about the series Knight Fall. Is it accurate?
It is not!
Salahdin Al Ayubi was than and today famous for his wisdom, tactical knowledge and noble way treating prisoners. When the horse of Lion Heart was killed in Battle, Salahdin saw it and ordered to send him one of his horses. This is how Salahdin was.
Noble way of treating prisoners? Like the Templars and Hospitallars after Hattin? Like the population of Giza in 1170? The Saladin depicted these days owes more to Walter Scott's fictional romanticism of Saladin then any basis in fact.
Saladin was a man of his time and location. He could be magnanimous or brutal as the situation dictated. To think he was anything more or less is pure fiction. Look at the 18,000 people of Jerusalem who were dragged into slavery because they couldn't pay his ransom price, or the butchering of the Hospitallers and Templars following Hattin (amongst other examples). He was indeed a great man and his memory is worthy of respect, but he wasn't some sort of chivalric leader without a blemish on his record.
Saladin is the Kurd all Arabs seem to want to claim as theirs. I always hear how he was a great Arab leader. Leader of Arabs yes Arab definitely not
@@kevinsharpe87 he was Kurdish?
@@ItsNotaCult420 yes he was
he doesn t come from northern France !he was from Chatillon Coligny where is located in center of France but there is controversy about his native land beacause we dont know much about his youth !!some say he could came from champagne (est of France ) but most historians are agree he was from chatillon Coligny and was related to Donzy 's family (strong and old french noble family)
Thank you for this channel
Great insight
Dr. Crawford I think understand Raynald better than anyone else in the world today. Really is intriguing to hear his thoughts.
I think the traitor was non other than gerard de ridefort the templar grand master. He is the one that lead 170 some of the most important knights in the whole of the kingdom into a fight he knew he could not win which got the most experienced templar knights out of the way and then saladin lets him live probably because of a deal they struck. Then he goes back to jerusalem and convinces the king in the middle of the night to march to hattin where he once again slips away unscathed and then saladin finally gets his hands on him again at acre and cuts off his head to keep the truth from ever coming out that he was a spy for saladin.
Thanks again, Jay ( Paul and Peter))..you guys have my interest piqued re Raynald.
Very interesting and important podcast. Many good points here. However, I would note that Prof. Crawford overstates the factionalism in the kingdom of Jerusalem in the period before Hattin (if interested in the topic here's a longer article "A Kingdom Divided?" (defendingcrusaderkingdoms.blogspot.gr/2014/10/a-kingdom-divided.html)), and also errs in suggesting Baldwin IV was carried onto the battlefield of Montgisard in a liter. Leprosy is a degenerative disease and in Baldwin's case the aggressive deterioration was triggered -- as is often the case -- by puberty. At Montgisard Baldwin was just 16 and although he later in his reign was reduced to a liter, at Montgisard he led his armies on horseback. I look forward to Prof. Crawford's forthcoming book!
Thanks for the comment Dr. Schrader! I didn't catch anything about Baldwin being carried on a liter at Montgisard, I thought Dr. Crawford said he was carried on a liter at later events, but I would have to go back and listen again. But yes, absolutely, Baldwin was riding on horseback at Montgisard. And I agree, it was a very interesting podcast and much needed as well.
Correct, he says something like (I paraphrase) "people give credit to
Baldwin IV rather than Chatillon for Montgisard, but that's not right
because Baldwin was a leper and we know that later he had to be carried around in a liter." So technically, he doesn't say it was the case at Montgisard, but he dismisses Baldwin's role by referring to his later
disability.
Hamilton, by the way, is one of the strongest defenders of Baldwin IV so I suspect Dr. Crawford is just a little carried away by his
(understandable) desire to defend Chatillon. It is very much time for a
revision, and I look forward to Crawford's book -- but an adjustment of
Chatillon's image doesn't have to come at the cost of Baldwin IV.
I also think Crawford overstates the case for Tripoli being a traitor, by the way. Since Guy was a usurper, Tripoli was legally justified in refusing to do homage. It might be fun to do a pod-cast with both of discussing Tripoli at Hattin.
Thank you so much for saying that. I think it's criminal how people tend to focus only on Baldwin IV's disease and not how the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem was actually kept strong because of his actions.
Facial reconstruction of Reynald Chatillon based on / from reconstructed face of Anna Chatillon( Reynald' daughter) by Arpas Karoly-reconstructor ) She resembled him She looked like Reynald.Reconstructed face of Anna Chatillon in Hungarian museum
What persists in amazing me however is the legend of saladin. After thousands of years this man’s name still rings like a powerful scary bell. This video shows me they were all just regular guys! That lived and died trying to prove themselves and their legacies were determined only by the lives they lived and the ppl they inspired. Reynald may not be as bad and Saladin not as good as we may believe sometimes.
Holy Knight and Holy martyr of Christ, Raynald di Chátilllon, pray for us. Amen.
An Invader who got vanquish... Real Christians are in the middle East and Ethiopia
@Mustafa .... 🤦
Has the book been published yet ? What is the title ? Thank you.
Look like no. Book
Why would anyone accept historical facts from a movie? I see this more and more in our current society. I would rather take the word of a historian like Dr. Crawford than Hollywoods flawed research which bends and molds historical facts to sell their movies.
Have you done a video on William of Tyre?
Renault should have a car named "de Châttilon". Gosh, i would buy that car xd
And then i want a fiat named "del Monferrato". ❤
ok .. this is my second time around watching you vids and well I will probably do it many more times. . this time around I caught something I did not notice before,, Raynald in his red sea move only did what the French and English (norman) always did for the most part.. not attack the army but hit the cities and towns to make the monarch seem weak. .. I can hardly call some one a historian who could not see this on the red sea move to push toward mecca.. Raynald just did as his folks always did, very easy to understand in that light, and obviously way too much ridley DA scott involved in folks thinking.
"I am renald de chatillion" !!! I am renald de chatillion!!😂
Very informative.
Did his book ever come out?
Coin Of Reynald Chatillon coin 2777.I see shape of Norman knight holding shield standard banner .I see Norman helmet and profile of his face.
Richard Briers or Patrick Mcnee should play role of Reynald
John Rhys- Davies should play role of
Saladin
Simon Ward should play role of Guy Lusignan
Much of the Crusades were very understandable and justified as defense and preservation of Christians not just ''Europeans'' but all Christians being able to have pilgrimage.
I tried to reconstruct face of Raynald Chatillon .I based on reconstructed face of Anna Chatillon ( Reynald' s daughter) We had two version of facial reconstruction of Anna/ Agnes Chatillon .I wrote in keywords;
Namely
1 " Anna Chatillon"
2" " facial reconstruction of Agnes of Antioch "
3 " Folia antropologica Anna Chatillon"
4 "Arpas Karoly antropologia Anna "
5" Anna Chatillon magyar"
6" Megérkezek Fehévárra a királyi kiállitás "
7 " Egy nagy király emberi arca.III Bela"
Photos of Bela III and Agnes Ann Chatillon
I used 12 photos and photo editor ( change of gender , changer of Age, add mustache ,beard).Coin of Reynald 2777.Grandson: Andrew II of Hungary and grandadaughter Constance ( Constance porta coeli) .Who should play Raynald :
Maurice Chevalier as Raynald
Bearded Richard Briers ( Frankenstein,Much do about Nothing,Peter pan)
Patrick Mcnee bearded ( Two's crowds, Fog, Sense of history, What butler saw)
Hector Elizando bearded as Buffalo Bill in las Man standing) Hector Elizando as Raynald Chatillon?
John Ashton as Raynald .Saladon send head od Reynald to Damascus .Dirhaim of Saladin .John Rhys-Davies , Ibrahim Tatlises, Yilmaz Erdogan as Saladin .
Yes
Jestem dumny
Mój opis jest bardzo sensowny
Trzeba rekonstruować
Tak
Reynald of Chatillon commanded the USS Iowa in the Dominion War. He fought off Jem Hadar battleships with photon torpedoes. Because of him the Federation had access to the Bajoran Wormhole.
Reynold got some mideivil old school fake news. Lol. Was cnn working back then? Lol.
Lol....
God's Wolf.
Raynald of Chatillion is a true hero and champion of God.😆
Much like Saladin who brutalised what he saw as heretical Shia Muslims, Reynald's attacks on Greek and Armenian Christians wasn't against his particular sect of "Christians". Orthodox Christians were, according to Western Chrsitians, schismatics.
That’s the problem I have with this channel, vested interests.
Just like the stories of Saladins “peaceful ways” defy logic, real people are neither heroes or villains. (They commit acts that are both, and might be more of one than the other, but overall it’s all just shades of grey)
So why is it that Raynald has to be a hero or a villain?
Was Saladin?
Was Lionheart?
Was anyone?
@@JDahl-sj5lk we already have the demonozed versions of christian lords, this pushback is necessary to balance and it so lazy masses dont just get the demonozed version.
Gets the masses who cares to think.
The Wolf of God!
The Kingdom of Heaven movie is very bad history. For one thing Balian of Ibelin was not an illigitimate child born in France. He was born in the Holy Land.
The motive behind the movie was a comment on US foreign policy and therefore the facts of the actual movie are not meant to be taken at face value
👍🤜🤛👍
In one way I’m sad that the English were left out of the crusades because it’s great history but then on the other hand, it means the English are exonerated of all the controversy that goes along with it. It’s great learning about it though.
Ummmm....Richard the Lionheart?
Richard of Cornwall? Edward I? Robert of Normandy? No, we English stayed well away from it...
The English were a major part of the Crusades. They even had symbols added to the family crests of those who fought in the Crusades. Its easy to talk about the lords who fought the Crusades, but for each one of them were hundreds of soldiers as well.
Silly movie? I am not an historian, but I am knowledgeable of medieval warfare. The drama behind Raynald is hazy to me, but the storyline is not. 'Kingdom of Heaven' was (isn't) a silly movie. It is one of my favorite movies. It may not be 'spot on' historically accurate, but it is very entertaining and realistically rendered, as far as combat scenes. I don't know of any medieval movies that are historically accurate. 'Ironclad' is also on my favorites list. Know that I am a 'Lord of the Rings' (Peter Jackson) fan.
You must not know much about medieval combat and warfare. The film's military scenes are absurd.
Absurd? Explain yourself.
you have video on channel how absurd it was
@@RealCrusadesHistory @real crusades history Your a humble host and I enjoy your podcasts. This is the 1st time I've ventured underneath them however. This reply was as honestly brutal as is was hilarious. It calls to mind a familiar quote "He's more machine now than man... "(Obi-wan).
Ha...
The untold thruth of a crusader ❤