This genocide talk doesn't really understand medieval sieges - it was pretty standard for sieges to be negotiated between attacker and defender - "If my reinforcements don't arrive by the summer equinox we open the gates, and in return we get to live" was a pretty typical sort of agreement. And if these agreements didn't happen, and the attackers breached the city by force after a protracted siege, you slaughtered the defenders to the last man and pillaged the city as punishment to the defenders and a reward to your own long suffering soldiers. This was standard practice where fortresses were used - SandRhoman covers this stuff really well.
As far as I know, this mentality continued into the early modern period. Even in the Napoleonic Wars sieges that were bloody where the defenders didn’t surrender things got pretty danged awful.
That holds true even to early modern sieges. The sack of Magdeburg is a very prominent example from the thirty years war. It was kinda rare, however, since they actually introduced the word "magdeburgisieren", "to magdeburgize" for the complete obliteration of a city into the German vocabulary some time afterwards.
@@kingleech16 This mindset is entirely why the early years of WW1 had such a horrified reaction. Because it was quick, uncaring, and allowed no time for anyone to react properly within the former mindset
Apparently Prince Tancred attempted to actually save the lives of some of the people of Jerusalem by giving them his banner. Which was meant to signify they were under his protection. Unfortunately this didn’t work but this is more evidence that not all crusaders had the same hostile attitude to the local population as is often depicted.
I feel like a major factor not mentioned in the context of history is how sieges which are long and difficult for the besiegers often turn into sacks despite efforts by the higher level commanders to reign in their men.
@@bumblingbureaucrat6110 Even into the modern period. I recall stories from the Napoleonic Wars and even WWI where officers lost control of their troops after bloody sieges.
@@bumblingbureaucrat6110 Yep, it's even in Henry V by Shakespeare with Harfleur as a central story aspect that he bluffs the defenders into giving up due to the threat of what will happen if they breach the walls and win.
@@kingleech16 I seem to recall that being an issue at some point in the American Civil War even, where General Sherman laments that his men got drunk and carried away after raiding a confederate supply depot on the way to Atlanta, I know it comes up in one of Atun-Shei's videos specifically his video ON Sherman so don't quote me on that however.
The oversimplification of history to impose modern context onto past events is an attempt to eradicate that history. Calm, rational address of historical events is not often done in these times. Bravo sir, bravo!
@@brianoneil9662 It's because the same people have the exact same simplistic and uneducated black&white view of the world today. There's no nuance, no reasoning why, no ability to comprehend that what has happened is a result of something else happening, which was a result of something else before that l ad infinitum. There's a phrase which perfectly nails this for me: 'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions'
Ukraine's Holodomor wasn't the only genocide being perpetrated at the time. Kazakh famine of 1930-1933 -- wiped out ~40% of the Kazakh population; for the same reason.
I remember hearing that Ukrainians outside of Ukraine were also targeted. Somehow people use that to say it’s not what it is because it happened in other places than Ukraine.
I heard about the Kazakhs, I think other minorities in the USSR also took a hell of a beating during that period. Folks who proudly proclaim that there was/is no racism in communist countries need their heads examined.
As a historian (of Byzantine History), I am so glad to see you setting the record straight here. I've seen a lot of revisionism making headway in the West recently regarding the Crusades, particularly about how they were a totally offensive and entirely genocidal act by Europe. I've spent much time explaining to many friends of mine how the First Crusade was largely a continuation of the Byzantine-Seljuk Wars, as it was the Byzantine Emperor who (somewhat inadvertently) triggered the First Crusade. And this idea that the Crusaders were genocidal in the Holy Land is entirely false. As you correctly pointed out, we are well aware that this was not a genocidal act because we have clear evidence of Crusaders behaving in such a way in other places and against other enemies (The Baltic Pagans and the Cathars come to mind). The history of the Crusades have lately come to be used by many particularly in the west as a political tool, and this is a perfect example.
Yeah, Baltic crusades are underrated in the whole Crusader lore. They've done really bad to some Europeans. I remember that they enslaved, pillaged and raped their way to Nicopolis (where they had their asses handed to them rightfully so)
Please make more videos like this one and the Carolingian renaissance. They are really good. Videos re-examining general myths and common conceptions are very interesting and thought provoking. Thank you, and have a happy new year
This is something my ethics professor spoke about, the overuse of genocide in areas where it doesn't fit so well (such as The Crusades) not only waters down the term itself, but also obfuscates actual crimes against humanity committed.
To be fair, I kinda felt the opposite happen. Nowadays, a lot of people will argue that an atrocity against innocent people doesn't qualify as Genocide unless it reaches a morbid enough level of destruction, which tends to align with people's standards of Medieval times in terms of cruelty. Our standards for what qualifies as genocide were set by that level of cruelty in past times, specifically to avoid it in modern times. To say they weren't because "the morality and rules of war were different back then" doesn't help. Yes they were not as bad within their past context, from their specific perspective, and while we can offer the benefit of doubt for those long dead people, we shouldn't doubt its nature in a modern context for the sake of historical neutrality. Those people didn't have the concept of Genocide written down. None of those acts could fit that criteria. But we can judge it and name it as such today, in order to know what not to do anymore. Already, actions such as those in Gaza and the Uyghurs in China, as well as Russian rethoric regarding Ukraine, are being scrutinized to remove the tag of Genocide, solely on ideas of "is not as bad as what used to happen over 100 years ago" or "those people have different standards for warfare and culture". Just as we need to look at history with a neutral lense, we must also draw a line for present events, and not use the same excuses we use to contextualize past events, else we normalize doing them again from a pragmatic sense of "they weren't evil when they did it, so neither are we if we are to do it now". Usually, it is a safer bet to criticize acts of violence more harshly, than to water them down as products of long outdated circumstances, so that we can move away from them.
@@vladstefan5216 Ngl both can be true, a mass killing doesnt make a genocide, and a genocide can be more than just physically killing the group (can cover intentional starvation, deprivation, etc.), all in all leads to a lot more obfuscation. Thanks for bringing this up, these are good points
It is extremely hard to get students to not look at history from a modern perspective. Have been trying in my classes, but modern judgment makes it very hard to look at the past objectively.
Yes. I am not a teacher but i have seen that too many times. As said in this video: We have to stop applying modern values to history. Yes we can compare to modern standards, but first we have to compare with the values of that time. "Older" films with stories playing in the late 19th and 20th century USA maybe called racist by modern standards, but they can still be super progressive towards civil right for their time. Change does not go overnight, changes in society need time and often multiple stages of standards that have to become the new social values of most of the people. And exactly that is why nobody can use the standards of our status of social values to really "measure" the acts of people who lived 50, hundreds or even thousands of years ago.
If you apply modern day standards, then the founder of the Muslim faith is a paedophile, since he took as his wife a child of 12 years old. But this statement is considered to be offensive.
I use the 'washing your hands for surgery' analogy. Someone might reasonably have worked out that clean hands were good, but judging everyone that way through history just doesn't work.
My students always ask me if x was good or bad and I have to be like well these people don’t think the way we do so good or bad to them, good to us today or what
You hit the nail on the head when you said "We can't keep forcing our 21st Century views on subjects we study in history. Or else we loose the understanding of how it happened and we will just end up repeating the same mistakes." Excellent video, really enjoyed this one for the history you brought to light and the common sense mythbusting you performed here.
It seems the historian is cursed to try his hardest in the face of his own biases to get to the truth, only to have his work willfully misinterpreted by politics and pop culture.
It's funny how the algorithm doesn't help you unless you do something controversial, but if your controversial topic isn't something they agree with it also doesn't help you. Yup. Ultimate platform right there. Only let one type of thought reach the masses, because that's how you get people to be open-minded.
Ridley Scott can also shoulder some of the blame for modern perceptions of the crusades thanks to his film Kingdom of Heaven and how it portrayed the crusaders and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
@@ryanparker4996 More like he's known for being VERY anti-Catholic! On a side note they used historically accurate Trebuchets in Kingdom of Heaven, which he directed, so not sure how he thought he could get away with using what I am assuming were likely the same ones in Gladiator II - the most unnecessary sequel in the last 20 years! lmao
Especially with the latter, we need to put him in protective custody with that one. The Indian government has already sponsored an assasination in Canada over the Khalistanis.
@@avroarchitect1793 Uh oh, now you'll be branded a "colonialist", which is also DEFINITELY the same thing as a "racist", since words began to be redefined by people with a poor understanding of language.
@@avroarchitect1793 "nuh uh Modi is totally a democratic leader! 100% not involved in criticism of him being shut down and journalists' offices being raided... toooootaalllly"
Modern people, *particularly* those that do not understand how the Laws of War work or were actually developed over history, cannot grasp the idea that, in pre-modern warfare, the sacking of a city and massacre of the residents was not only *in accordance with* the Laws of War at the time, it was done in lawful reprisal specifically *because the defenders had VIOLATED the accepted Laws of War* . The critical point is understanding the true purpose.ofnthe Laws of War and how they develop. *The Laws of War do not exist to make warfare "nice", "clean", or "civilized".* The Laws of War are intended to *reduce the overall cost of war* by encouraging negotiations and surrender over destroying everything of value (including the population). Thus, why sacking a city if it fails to surrender when required by the norms was not an "atrocity" by the then existing Laws of War. It was intended to discourage futile defenses that could have no logical ending other than the amount of destruction and death in the city. Why keep defending if the only result is that you have to repopulate and rebuild more, when you could have avoided that expense either seeing an unstoppable.force arranged outside the gates, or after the first "practicable breach" was made in the defenses, or after being besieged for X days without a relief column showing up? Note there was no corresponding penalty for *successfully* repelling an attack - that was considered to be bad leadership on the part of the *attackers* and thus the penalty falls on the attacking force in the form of the blood and treasure lost in the attempt.
It is also worth noting that the casualties of a siege generally fell disproportionately on the attacking side. Partly because attacking high walls defended by people shooting from cover is inherently costly….. and partly because large numbers of men in temporary accommodation, no sewers and little or no fresh food, inevitably suffered high casualty rates from disease. An army conducting multiple sieges could lose so many men that the campaign would fail and defeat be inevitable, even tho they won all or most of their sieges. Therefore it made a great degree of sense to provide the defenders with an INCENTIVE to make a rational assessment of their prospects of success EARLY, by demonstrating that the stakes went up as the defence was prolonged. In other words, you don’t get to inflict great casualties on the attackers, then walk away with your family and portable wealth intact “because white flag”. If you make everyone else suffer, you will suffer too.
@@TheWizardboy5 Since YT filters comments and replies that contain links, that cannot be done. Personally I'm not book read on the era so cannot put any references forward in that regard. However the authour of this video has provided all their sources used for reading, and given the topic may include the evidence that you are looking for. Alternatively, and YT comments are the only time I condone this as it's generally a poor fallacy, you can simply Google it. There is plenty of discussion regarding this, plenty of this exact question being asked before you with plenty of high quality answers. That is, of course, you are serious about learning the topic and not simply a person who thinks that replying with 'souce bro' to something they don't like is somehow a rebuttal.
@@anton2192...yes? Have you actually watched this video. That is literally the exact point that is being made in the video. That judging the past by today's customs is a bad way to learn history. In 3000 years time they will probably think that the laws we have now are primitive and backwards. And they would be right in many instances. There are also many things that previous civilisation did better than us that we've gone back on. And that may be the case for 3000year future civs as well.
As someone with a background in theology and church history, this is a perspective a lot of people miss because they get their information on the crusades from terrible sources. Also my boy syncretism getting a shout out, a word that is critically underused by explains a lot of religious phenomena over the centuries. The truth of the matter is that almost all the sources people cite about the Crusades are inaccurate, not because they're written by bad historians a long time ago, but because they're not written by historians at all- they're written by polemicists, both Islamic and Protestant (I say this as a Protestant theologian myself- if you read a lot of early Reformation era literature it really is nothing except polemic, there is no defending it from a modern rational perspective as the facts were sometimes wholesale fabricated or created to suit narratives for no purpose other than to harm the Catholic church and paint it as backwards). For example, the Children's Crusade, as it exists in popular misconception, never happened. There is an event that serves as an origin, with children crossing the Alps to go to Rome as part of a movement that would have become a crusade, but the pope at the time sent them back because, well, sending thousands of kids to go retake the Holy Land is insane. And popular discourse around the crusades is muddled and confused, showing a real misunderstanding of what a crusade even is- for example, Wikipedia even lists the Spanish Armada as a crusade, and while there was a religious dimension to the Spanish-English conflict at the time it was by no definition that any credible academic I'm aware of would accept a crusade. Likewise, the Reconquista, a war with definite religious overtones, is listed as a crusade despite not being an attempt to reclaim the Holy Land, having extremely messy and often interfaith alliances, and being a conflict originating in an Islamic invasion of a Christian region (admittedly not a Christian region for very long at the time). A lot of the conflicts identified as crusades are simply conflicts with religious overtones, but if you look at the history of armed conflict pretty much every conflict through history leverages cultural differences in one way or another- the Russian invasion of Ukraine could be categorized as a crusade if you want to emphasize the religious schism between the Russian and Ukrainian orthodox churches under such a broad definition, but the people pushing for that broad definition only want it because it serves a revisionist worldview where the Catholic Church, as a proxy for a modern "West", is a colonialist power similar to modern industrialized empire. However, the category of Crusade is applied to wars involving Catholic powers strictly for the purposes of making Catholic Europe into a monolithic colonial power for narrative purposes, which it was not, and the motivations of the various participants in the many conflicts listed as crusades are no more religious than the motivations of many different factions throughout history. Religion is simply a strong way to motivate people to go to war- even ethnic ties can be messy when populations coexist for an extended period of time, but confessions of faith are usually delimited neatly and you can demonize a religion off of its most extreme examples very easily. But there are a lot of inclusions by different groups of different wars for different reasons to present ideological positions that really bend any organized definition. I would academically say that a crusade is a war sanctioned by the Catholic church involving the Holy Land (which itself is a very broad definition to be charitable) but that would undermine several of the popularly defined crusades and almost all of the ones listed by revisionists (the Reconquista, the Spanish Armada) and several popular ones like the Children's Crusade (which is itself a myth) by their nature. Some of the major events associated with the Crusades that are defined as "religiously motivated" when really they are not- for example, the sack of Constantinople is done by mercenaries who weren't paid, not a Catholic force looking to unseat Orthodoxy. In fact, the looting that took place during the sack of Constantinople was done at the threat of excommunication from the Catholic church! Though, admittedly, how credible a threat that is when Catholic institutions happened to end up with much of the treasure over the next several years is perhaps somewhat dubious, just like how war crimes often entail harsh punishments but nations tend to protect their own soldiers even against insurmountable evidence. However, most of the crusades involved temporal motivation as well as religious ones- pardons for crimes (and sins, too, so there is a religious element there), the possibility of treasure and conquest, and even simply trying to send away potential threats to local power to prevent local wars by having possible rivals and idle soldiers march on Jerusalem. While I don't want to discount the role of religious fervor in the Crusades, as it certainly did play a part, it's not uniquely religious, or even more religious in nature than wars launched by pagan or Islamic forces in the same region. As a tangent, a lot of the anti-Western revisionism (both Islamic and generally anti-Catholic) ignores the fact that the Christian invaders were, in fact, invading in response to Islamic invasions of "Christendom" that had displaced and subjugated Christian populations of the region- and while I don't want to pass a value judgement on historical factions through a modern lens too tritely I do think the modern revisionists who point to Catholic "aggression" while absolving Islamic invasions of all guilt are disingenuous hypocrites- both religions built empires on blood, though the amount of blood is exaggerated by polemicists on the other side. This is often obfuscated by romantic revisionism of life under Islamic rule, but like all empires through history, while you can find examples of Christians and Jews living peacefully under Muslim rule, it is not the only scenario and Islamic empires practiced many things that we would consider barbaric by modern sensibilities (though, to extend the same lens to the Islamic empires as to the Catholic church, many of these were not unusual for the time nor motivated solely by religion like some radical revisionists would The origin of the Crusades is relatively mundane compared to what the revisionists want to say. While there were attempts to retake Jerusalem, it was never a true attempt to eradicate Islam. The Crusades have their origin in organizations designed to ensure the protection of pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem, and was not uniquely targeted at Islam but also was also intended to protect pilgrims on their journey through Europe and modern Turkey, which were not stable or safe. While Catholic leaders did have a concept of retaking the Holy Land long before the Crusade, you would be hard pressed, even with the extreme polemic against Islam by some Catholics (which is not exclusive to Catholicism- polemic is one of the most common forms of discourse, even to this day when we think of ourselves as more "enlightened") to find anyone involved with the Crusades who had a war goal of actually eradicating Islam. While some of the more grandiose and absurd leaders may have thought they could convert the wayward Muslims to Catholicism, almost no Catholics actually thought, short of some kind of divine intervention or second coming of Christ (look, I'm in agreement that the crusades were not a g-word, but some of the crusaders were a bit nuts), that they would actually eradicate Islam. Ultimately, bad history is almost entirely responsible for the understanding of the Crusades, whether it's the early Protestant polemic, Islamist revisionism, far right revisionism (which I hesitate to categorize as Christian revisionism per se because I believe that they're often nationalist or racist groups using Christian identity as a cover, but I'm aware some people would call Christian despite being anathema to any orthodox understanding of Christianity- they're heretics, literally speaking), or just lazy sensationalized history. People accept absolutely inaccurate sources and narratives with no critical thought and it leads to people who understand very little of the historical, cultural, or religious contexts. This leads to absurd situations where some people believe that Christians invaded the Holy Land to take it from the Muslims (who had always been there, of course, somehow, or had taken it by completely peaceful means and not, you know, conquest), or that the Crusades were purely righteous endeavors intended only to save souls and protect the innocent (they were motivated by religious fervor to be sure, but also greed and politics as much as anything else), or any other number of absurd and intellectually inconsistent explanations for what ultimate is a very difficult to explain series of political, social, and religious factors combining over centuries (often in different and dynamic ways simplified into one pea sized narrative for the point of selling books or ideology).
Small addition: > Though, admittedly, how credible a threat that is when Catholic institutions happened to end up with much of the treasure over the next several years is perhaps somewhat dubious, The threat might have been really credible so this might be the exact reason why Catholic institutions happened to end up with much of the treasure over the next several years. As a good old bribing attempt to avert excommunication. 😉
The whole "response to an invasion of Christendom" thing is something that tends to be ignored despite how big of a deal it was at the time. No matter how much people say "oh it was all a justification for their own geopolitical ambitions", it only works as a justification because Muslims DID just recently conquer almost half the Christian world. What were they supposed to do, nothing?
It’s crazy how many people point to the Crusades as a reason religion is bad (cause it causes these horrible wars!) but don’t know the origins of the Crusades. The first crusade, for example, was purely defensive. The Seljuks invaded the Byzantine Empire, who were Christian, so the Byzantine empire called on Christendom to help and these countries used religion as a rally cry. For most of the Crusades, religion was more of a rally cry/propaganda piece rather than a cause. It’s no different than Union propaganda from the American Civil War calling the South Rebs, or WW1 Entente Soldiers calling the Germans Fritz or Jerry, or WW2 soldiers calling the Germans Krauts.
As someone literally *from* Jerusalem, and studied historical geography & culture in the university there, I have to thank you. This is very correct. This was a very "normal" siege by Mediterranean standards, and the cultural continuity is easy to see in the very buildings of the Old City (i.e. while some new churches were built in the christian quarter, the mosques remain as well. Dome of the Rock exists, and if the crusaders had truly set the "new normal" to genocide the muslim reconquest would have torn down all the churches in retaliation). This modern level of violence is a modern import.
Huh, I never heard of the crusades as genocidal. Never even thought of them that way, to be honest. The way the Church was killing the s--t out of heretics at the time kind of overshadowed the relatively tame killing in the holy land.
its soly made up by a bunch of antichristians comparing islamic jihads (especially the recent ones) then gaslighting everyone that the christians were always just as bad or worse than modern muslim terrorists. in reality the crusades were at first a response to the terrifyingly rapid expansion of the khalifat that needed an equal response. it worked the muslims largely stopped majorly expanding into the whole of europe job done then it broke down to christian infighting and secular power hungry reasons. luckily muslims werent and arent nearly as united as europeans believe and they have muslim and secular infighting just as much as christian kingdoms
@@laisphinto6372I mean there was genocidal crusades though, such as the northern Crusades, which scholars agree were genocidial in nature as they intended to wipe out the people of the Baltics
@Swan_River_Cowboy When people say crusade, they tend to mean the middle east, rather than, say, the crusade against the Cathars in Iberia. Also genocidal, weirdly unknown these days for the number of people who died.
Have you done The Trouble in Ireland? eta: Russian ship Ursa Major just sank. Maybe you can add that to the list of why Russian navy sucks. It's not a warship, but it's still government owned.
A proper discussion of the Irish “troubles” would have to include what the Irish had been doing to each other, long before the francophone Anglo-Normans were invited in as hired muscle for an Irish civil war.
I don’t think a lot of people can reconcile the facts that genocides exist and are occurring right now and that very violent actions, especially in the past, doesn’t necessarily mean genocide.
I had to look up the wooden doors thing, I now feel stupider as a result. Yes, wood can indeed be made air tight, they made wooden diving bells back in the day.
In my pursuit of a history degree I keep getting given text books that are so heavily biased toward modern perceptions of history that paradoxically say “stop looking at history with bias”. It’s maddening
Try reading the original works, perhaps? Even though the translators' bias will inevitably creep in, it forces the reader to engage with someone who literally lived there. Once we understand victorian era biases we can better remove them from the way we study and narrate History in modernity
What a totally insane thing to say. "If you want a trad wife get ready to lose her to tuberculosis in 5 minutes." OK first of all if that's how it actually was in the past we wouldn't be here at all... And that harshness doesn't discredit the idea of tradition, it reinforces it. If the conditions our ancestors lived in were so much harsher than today, then wouldn't it make sense to note the things they had to do to survive? If tradition was so bad, wouldn't it have resulted in their untimely death? Secondly, the medical technology or living conditions are decoupled from the social meaning of what people mean when they say something like a "trad wife." Usually, they aren't even talking about something from the Middle Ages, but rather something that was here, oh say 50 years ago. The point has nothing to do with going straight to the past warts and all. It's a commentary on the current status of society. You don't have to agree with the point they are making, but that kind of reaction is only proving your huge bias and making yourself look the fool.
While I mostly agree with this video, two things bother me. First, the siege of Nicaea. It's not an apt comparison. The city resisted and would likely have been sacked according to the rules of war, but, the Romans who didn't want that to happen, cut a deal with the defenders and took the city for themselves, denying the Crusaders the right to sack the city. Second. The sack of Jerusalem and the wider First Crusade definitely was NOT a genocide, on that we agree. However, we do know that even for the time, the sack of Jerusalem was particularly brutal and that's something both Christian and Islamic sources agree on, with the generally agreed on casualties being between 3.000 to 10.000. which is still a lot of people, a tenth to up to a third of the population of the city. EDIT: Some grammatical errors.
Nicaea was also Roman, and Roman forces were the first to breech the city and deny the Western Crusaders any loot. This would be one of the first troubles between Alexios I and the rest of the Crusader nobles until they split.
Thank god someone else said it. It irked me that he compared Nicaea to Jerusalem when the circumstances were entirely different for these. The Romans were definitely afraid that the Crusaders might sack the city, so they seized the city first to prevent just that.
I remember having this debate years ago with a girl my age, she was furious when I said that “they (Muslims) we’re at the very least just as bad, it was a war but they didn’t go to erase Muslims”
"Just as bad", yeah, no. These bathless Huns massacred Jerusalem, burned the Library of Tripoli, and ate people at Al-Marrah. Sorry, no. It was a war, indeed - like the one that Atilla launched against the Roman Empire.
Dude, I thought you will talk about the "Albigensian Crusade". It's so interesting because there's an active debate wether there was an active and organized heresy in Occitania or a church critical, reformist movement. ....
Some brief maths for the river of blood the average height of an arabian horse is 1.6 meters and a 1.6 cubic meter space is 1600 litres. Than multiply that by 300,000meters the number of meters per kilometre. which is 480 000 000 litre than divide that by 5 litres than average number of blood in a human body which would give the number of dead at least needed that being 960,000,000. So just shy of 1 billion people which the city population could no way reach
Modern People: "People starting wars over religion, what nonsense!" >Starts war over what color hat Karl Marx wants us to wear. >Builds camps for people who don't want to hear the hat.
I'm not a fan of the Crusades and I think they were about as justified as any other Medieval conflict (that is to say, not) but calling the Crusades (in the holy land) genocidal is completely nonsensical, and this is coming from a registered member of a Left Wing Canadian party (NDP)
@@crackedhammer4612 arguably not true, but who cares? they happened almost a millennia ago and they were inconsequential, never managed to achieve their long term goals. but i suppose they made the muslims aware that europe weren't as much of backwater as they'd thought, with heavy infantry and calvary.
Arthur Eckstein made a similar point in his book on the rise of the roman empire. Rome is often portrayed as an evil empire, but this image doesn't hold up well when you look at the historical context. Great video!
@@theAverageJoe25I mean if everyone is doing it then really you are just a better competitor. Evil usually is a juxtaposition to good of which the biggest competition were the Carthaginians who did the same stuff and also burned children alive
@@theAverageJoe25You’re proving the comment and the author the comment was talking about right. By our modern standards, slavery is a horrendous and evil concept. But, evil is a comparative word. By our modern comparison, these things are evil, but by the standards of the time they aren’t evil, just the norm
OMFG, THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO ONE HAS MADE ON TALKING ABOUT THE CRUSADES. what you SAID at 1:25 is the best thing to ever say and I have so much respect for you saying that. As a Muslim. every occasion, I hear people like Apostate Prophet ridicule Islam by lying, making stuff up, or falsify things about Islam through presentism and modern lenses. it's the same with every thing related to religion or religious wars. They always use modern lenses or presenting to biasley judge and interpret the past which is the most dishonest way to study history. And with crusades, I always hear one sided views depending on who I'm talking to. Genuinely, thank you for making this video!
Insulting belief of a bilion souls beacuse something that happend during medieval times is one of the most arrogant moves you could make Once again atheists did way worse things just read anything about 20.century
I think that the portrayal of the crusaders as nothing more than bloodthirsty barbarians is simply meant to be red herring to distract from the fact that Islam is a religion of war, forged in the fires of war, and continually fueled by war since its very inception. It's the classic case of poking someone in the eye and crying foul when they decide to poke back. Now, I will admit that it seems like Islam wants to shed its mantle of being a religion of war in the modern era, hence the "religion of peace" meme. But it's going to take a long time for that image to change, especially when there are still so many militant extremists Muslims. Which really sucks for quite possibly the vast majority of muslims who are no doubt average, peace-loving folk.
Can we all take a moment to appreciate how UA-cam doesn't even know what UA-cam wants? "More controversy!" but also "we will cut off add revenue for spicy words"
Now I know what I sound like during these discussions. Thank you. Have a wonderful holiday season, HoE. Be well, be happy and most of all, be safe. Happy/Merry whatever doesn't offend you, all. Cheers
Napkin math - An average person has 1.2 to 1.5 gallons of blood in their body. An Olympic Swimming Pool has 660,000 gallon capacity, and is 2m deep × 50m long by 20m wide. If you assume that everyone in Jerusalem had two gallons of blood, was crammed in on top of each other to wedge in a population ten times bigger than assumed in this video (300,000 instead of 30,000), not a single person was kicked out of the city before the siege, the crusaders killed everyone in the city, and that they perfectly extracted every drop of blood into a concentrated area the size of the pool, you wouldn't have enough blood spilled to fill the pool (600,000 gallons vs 660,000 for the Olympic pool). Thus we can conclude that a 1.5 meter deep 3km long river of blood would be impossible even if the Crusaders were the most psychotic bastards to weild a sword.
You told history so well, told how you should look at it incredibly accurate, you analyzed documents and maps so well. I would give you mouth to mouth.
I really appreciate this video. I value historical facts above peoples feelings (my own included) and in recently regarding a certain war in a certain part of the world, people have been spreading falsehoods about a certain country that was attacked simply because it wanted to just exist and live in actual peace.
In the words of my favorite college professor: History is messy, there are never pure good guys and bad guys, these are people with all their complexity and disgusting elements. War is brutal and lots of people die. We cant judge them by our views, we can only see things from their perspective.
I never thought about the G word in that context before and you're right, it's used improperly a lot Since my chat comments seem to go up in smoke, let me just say thanks and I'm looking forward to another installment of Russian Navy Shenanigans
The crusades were definitely stupid in their inception, but they weren't genocidal, for the most part. At least for the standards set at the time. You're correct.
It's kind of ridiculous to try and apply the logic of the post-Geneva Convention world to wars fought hundreds of years before the Geneva Conventions existed. Sacking cities was atrocious by design yes... but it was also kind of just how business was done back then (if cities didn't surrender and could not withstand the seige that is). I'm pretty sure there is no example of any medieval army fighting under any banner in history that never sacked a city when on a war of conquest. Wars which in and of themselves did not back then carry the same kind of cultural baggage they do today. That having been said, the Crusaders of the 1st Crusade - on their way to the Holy Land - did do a whole lot of massacres of Jewish communities in Central and Eastern Europe on their way to the Holy Land (communities which they were in no way supposed to be attacking). That was probably the most genocidal thing in the whole affair.
Those massacres were truly terrible and stringently opposed by the Catholic Church at the time. Almost all of the Bishops in the area did their best to protect the Jews from pogroms.
That needs qualification. SOME Crusaders decided to massacre Jews. The majority did no such thing. Secondly, there were determined efforts by Catholic Bishops, priests and Catholic Knights (Polish, IIRC) to defend those Jews.
@@bumblingbureaucrat6110 @peterwebb8732 of course, didn't mean to imply it was an organised effort. Just only so much nuance you can fit into a YT comment before suddenly you're writing your own essay. Legitimately did not know about the Catholic priests actively trying to protect the Jewish communities though so thank you for that insight.
I like your argument and i think it's necessary that we separate historical events from mdern political emotions and agendas. However i take issue with your image of the 'christian world'. A map doesn't make a world. It's the mediterranean world with its incredibly rich cultural and religious heritage: egyptian, persian, helenic etc. Christianity (itself extremely heterogenuous) spread through the roman empire, which then collapsed. And then you get expanding islamic states. The early medieval christian church didn't even know what to make of islam. To theologians of the time, it looked almost like another christian heresy. They did recognize Jesus after all in some way. And the lead-up to the first crusade was pure politics. It was the byzabtine empire (who hated the franks) who decided 'hey, let's play the Christendom card to make those suckers fight our wars', and they met an ally in Pope Urban II who had strong political ambitions. None of this is to say that the expanding islamic states were nice or that the crusaders were bad per se. But it was politics.
It's important to note that in both the Christian Roman Empire and medieval Europe, Christianity spread both through royal decree and missionary efforts through lands which were largely conquered pre-Christianity. The Islamic empires, on the other hand, spread through conquest almost exclusively after Islam, and in the name of it.
@@Remington53 not to forget the Reconquista which some claim as a retaking of lands that only really started about 200 years after Iberia was under Islamic rule, less a reconquest more military conquest
@@Swan_River_Cowboy 200 years is not that long though. That's like saying displaced indiginous peoples from the age of colonialism nowadays would be conquerers for wanting their homeland back because it either already has or nearly has been that long. Furthermore, the lengthy delay for uniting is common because these conquerers and colonials arrive to a strained and divided people that need entire generations usually to overlook their history of conflict that can go back to as far as their communities can even remember to fight this new and often at first seemingly small threat that more often than not arrives by offering to help with your enemies next door.
I just want to say that it's true that the crusades were mostly done for geopolitical ambitions, especially all the ones that came after the first crusade. ....at the same time though, it's kinda hard to ignore that before the Muslim conquests, a lot of that region was previously Christian. In a fairly short amount of time, practically half the Christian world had just been conquered. You know how Georgia just looks like this wierd isolated pocket of Christianity in the region? It used to not be isolated, they were just the one kingdom that managed to survive the annexations. It would not take much for Europeans at the time to see this as an existential threat to their religion with just how quickly they lost so many kingdoms. If it was the other way around it certainly would've been framed as such.
Dude i just watched freddas dogshit video on the crusades where he focused more on making fun of paxtube and Christianity that actually going into genuine depth and making logical arguments and someone in the comments suggested to check this video out and I am so glad I did thanks for putting genuine effort into this video to expose people who don't understand common sense
Times have indeed changed. We go to worship and are taught to watch the clergyman and make sure he does not stray from what is written. The first man named in the bible was a Scotsman, because he wanted everyone to read it.
Sorry to hear that about YT deliberately enshittifying. Forcing everybody to ruin their content on purpose is awful. Going to drive a lot of us away. Merry xmas.... :/
maybe a hot take but 99% of people talking about crusades have no clue about the crusades. they always merge them together when every single one is a seperate war waged and started for different reasons and motives
@@jalleyloney3588 I would argue the first one was definitely justified given just how far the Muslim empire and slave raids had spread across Europe and the Mediterranean. Post that, I will shamefully admit that my knowledge is practically none. I know the last crusades launched at eastern Europe were all kinds of a mess however and should not have happened or atleast been allowed to devolve as they did.
I can absolutely apply modern standards to the distant past. It's interesting and fun. It doesn't really tell you anything about the motivations or actions of the people living then. Good video, 10/10.
8:42 the religion itself teaches peace, like christianity, but it's not followed often. like the ottoman or russian empires, great empires that took over large swathes of land, yet imposed their respective religions on their citizens
So the crusaders terrorized other christians harder then they did muslims? The irony is remarkable. I think i remember something about the crusaders sacking Constantinople on thier way to the "holy" land, that place cant catch a break!
Thank you for covering this, as there's a lot of misinformation surrounding these damn conflicts. Some good video series cover parts of the timelines, like Extra History's First Crusade and Saladin series, but not videos breaking down subjects like this.
This is just excellent. Honesty in history is needed more than ever. I’m sick of history being rewritten. Sick of history being viewed through a modern political lens.
I think thats a presentism. There really wasn't secular thinking like you or I would understand it back then (much like how there wasn't nationalist thinking). Most everything was related back to god on at least some level. Yes arguably most of the crusaders were very interested in gaining wealth, glory, and new lands. But if you asked them 'what about service to god and saving your soul and others and securing the holy city for pilgrims?' They wouldn't really get what you're saying. That *is* what they're doing. There is no split or contradiction between these two sets of goals.
@@ShadowGrickenThere is a lot of documentary evidence WRT to the Crusades. Firstly, most of the evidence points to Crusading being enormously expensive, and no-one was paying off their Crusading debts by shipping loads of treasure. Secondly, analysis of those who went, tends to show that it was based on families and social groups, not on economic groups. The pattern is much more consistent with religious motivation than commercial. What bemuses me, is the idea that a region which had been conquered and occupied by the Romans, the Greeks and the Islamists, is going to have abundant treasure just sitting around for the taking. It’s a very resource-poor region and Jerusalem is not some great trading hub.
@@peterwebb8732 Well, actually, Jerusalem (and all cities in Canaan, really) were crucial overland trading hubs since the bronze age. They were the crossroads of Egypt, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia, and all lands around those places too.
There was a take by Byzansimp that Crusades was mostly an attempt to divert the Europeans away from their empire (keep in mind, Normans in Sicily are fighting in Balkans) while also dealing with Pecheneks in north and Turks in east. Not to mention that relationship between them are super tense…though it also might have narratives and bias based on nationality since Byzansimp is Georgian (the country in Caucasus).
Ironic that this truth should be considered “hard”. Why would people be reluctant to accept that the violence and suffering of any period has been exaggerated? Why are they so emotionally committed to the narrative of genocide….. unless they WANT the Crusaders/Colonists to be evil?
another example of coopting the crusade to fit a modern group , is the modern templars. these guys formed in germany in the early 20h century, and formed colonies in amny places but also in israel, which was a t the time under ottoman and later british rule .
One of the best Rundowns on the Crusades I have heard in a while. I am glad that there are sane voices in humanity like you Sir. Sadly it is not the majority by a long shot.
The goal of the Crusades was not about the destruction of people but rather the destruction of Islam and conquest of the near East and (parts of the) middle East. Many Muslims, civilians and soldiers, died as a result of that, but it wasn't a genocide. Likewise, the Islamic expansion in Spain also wasn't a genocide, it was about conquest and submission of infidels.
Muslim expanded alot more then just spain. They conquered syria, jerusalem, they were in a ongoing war with several balkan states which brought about vlad the impaler. They conquered portugal. They conquered Egypt, anatolia, the iberian peninsula.
We had a similar ideological kerfuffle in Canada a few years ago when some radical leftists claimed that the Canadian government's treatment of its first nations populations over the past 150 years amounts to an ongoing "genocide." One group argued that the treatment of Canada's indigenous population makes them feel like it feels like a genocide, therefore, it is a genocide because, feelings. Another group of people said it wasn't a genocide because they have dictonaries and know what words means. As someone who studied atrocity law as part of my legal education, you are absolutely correct to focus on intent. The crime of genocide has a strict intent mens rea element. In other words, there needs to be some primary source evidence to prove that the actions to wipe a group of people off the face of the earth were done intentionally, deliberately, or on purpose. To do that, you need something like, for example, the minutes of a meeting where military officers and government officials look at the logistics of rounding up millions of people and transporting them across a continent, by train, to various death camps. While it is true that the Canadian government's treatment of its first nations populations has been egregious and wrongheaded and just plain bad, it wasn't genocidal. It would be, to be honest, best described as criminal negligence. When it comes to the Residential School system, the Canadian government handed control over to some churches (United and Catholic) with no absolutely no oversight and minimal funding. Today, the Catholic church has a bit of a reputation, and quite a few priests in those schools did things to kids for decades. And the government did nothing--except sit on and ignore reports on what was actually happening for years. But willful blindness is not, legally speaking, the same thing as deliberate intent. And as you had said in another video: never attribute malice to incompetence.
As a Jewish Israeli man. I totally concur. The intent was and still is potently prevalent - culturally and religiously amongst our "neighbors" who don't even bother hiding it.... Quite the contrary in fact. That said, one cannot discount the Church's complicity in a past tainted with horrors - and that's a mere understatement.
@@Swan_River_Cowboy I like how on one side you get people lying about it being a genocide to gain more sympathy, and on the other side you get people lying about it going "yea it was, based and cool right??"
I used to agree that you can’t look at the past through a modern view, but I have grown out of that notion over the last few years. The truth is that is the only way we can look at the past. No matter how hard we try, we will never be able to properly put ourselves in the heads of a person from 1098AD. We can approximate, we can consider how they may have seen things, and this is a good thing to do. But it is also good that we can look back and condemn. We can say, “It is good that our modern sensibilities tell us to reject bigotry, religious zealotry, and the notion of divine right.” How else are we to avoid the mistakes and horrors of the past? I think the real problem lurks in trying to transpose modern motivations onto people of the past, as it can cause us to misunderstand and remain blind to political, social, and cultural forces that motivated historical events.
You mentioned Sigismund, which in Czech is Zikmund. We have pun-nickname for him Zmikund, which in english would be Sigisc*nt. Just a fan fact, carry on...
The Crusades were only "genocidal" by coincidence. As they progressed from one to the next, the religious element increasingly became only a surface veneer to hide the real political and economic motives behind them. The Fourth Crusade in particular was a hit job. Pope: "No, I totally didn't order the Crusaders to sack Zadar! It's just a coincidence that Zadar was an economic rival of my supporters in Venice!" (wink wink)
i think people should stop using genocide all the damn time. best example is "caesar genocided the gauls" which is wrong the word is massacred a few but gauls were in his legions, gauls paid taxes , for crying out loud it was caesar who invited gauls into the senate and they stayed a backbone for roman armies for the next centuries. genocide is a recent word made up in the 20th century just like fascism. it doesnt work hamfisting that term into the past as well because the fasces are a republic symbol from the roman republic heck the goddamn "muh freedom" USA has fasces litterally in its symbols
But after the backlash from the sack of Zara, the Pope excommunicated everyone. After that it was Byzantine politics, and their unpaid frankish mercenaries. That would have their gold one way or another... May be going too far but Dandolo was the 13th century Prigozhin. There, I said it, fight me
The main motivation was simply to secure the holy sites for pilgrims, and the Seljuk Turks slaughtering pilgrims was the final crime that triggered the 1st Crusade. Conversion of the locals was not even considered.
Error, instructions unclear, currently sacking Constantinople.
More like "pay your bills, fucko, or else!"
Curse you to the special Hell, full of Telemarketers, Evangelicals and Internet influencers, Dandolo🔥🔥🔥🔥😿
Damn it not again
@@ad_astra5 Well, this time a crusade would be kinda justified.
To avenge the Trojan and for the massecare of the Latins
This genocide talk doesn't really understand medieval sieges - it was pretty standard for sieges to be negotiated between attacker and defender - "If my reinforcements don't arrive by the summer equinox we open the gates, and in return we get to live" was a pretty typical sort of agreement. And if these agreements didn't happen, and the attackers breached the city by force after a protracted siege, you slaughtered the defenders to the last man and pillaged the city as punishment to the defenders and a reward to your own long suffering soldiers. This was standard practice where fortresses were used - SandRhoman covers this stuff really well.
As far as I know, this mentality continued into the early modern period. Even in the Napoleonic Wars sieges that were bloody where the defenders didn’t surrender things got pretty danged awful.
That's a lot of words
Too bad I'm not reading them
That holds true even to early modern sieges. The sack of Magdeburg is a very prominent example from the thirty years war. It was kinda rare, however, since they actually introduced the word "magdeburgisieren", "to magdeburgize" for the complete obliteration of a city into the German vocabulary some time afterwards.
@@kingleech16 This mindset is entirely why the early years of WW1 had such a horrified reaction. Because it was quick, uncaring, and allowed no time for anyone to react properly within the former mindset
This was pretty much the deal in Fallujah.
I see in no way how this comment section will be heated at all
😂
Lol, lmao even
How dare you say this
It'll be skittles and beer.
Especially after attacks on Christmas markets.
Apparently Prince Tancred attempted to actually save the lives of some of the people of Jerusalem by giving them his banner. Which was meant to signify they were under his protection. Unfortunately this didn’t work but this is more evidence that not all crusaders had the same hostile attitude to the local population as is often depicted.
I feel like a major factor not mentioned in the context of history is how sieges which are long and difficult for the besiegers often turn into sacks despite efforts by the higher level commanders to reign in their men.
@@bumblingbureaucrat6110 Even into the modern period. I recall stories from the Napoleonic Wars and even WWI where officers lost control of their troops after bloody sieges.
@@bumblingbureaucrat6110 Yep, it's even in Henry V by Shakespeare with Harfleur as a central story aspect that he bluffs the defenders into giving up due to the threat of what will happen if they breach the walls and win.
@@kingleech16 I seem to recall that being an issue at some point in the American Civil War even, where General Sherman laments that his men got drunk and carried away after raiding a confederate supply depot on the way to Atlanta, I know it comes up in one of Atun-Shei's videos specifically his video ON Sherman so don't quote me on that however.
The oversimplification of history to impose modern context onto past events is an attempt to eradicate that history. Calm, rational address of historical events is not often done in these times.
Bravo sir, bravo!
And often shows the truth, though those historians may lose their jobs
Unfortunately, we will always have such people who will continue to do it. It's a very very long battle
Well said and well articulated.
No no, eradication of history is when modern statues are removed!!11
@@brianoneil9662 It's because the same people have the exact same simplistic and uneducated black&white view of the world today.
There's no nuance, no reasoning why, no ability to comprehend that what has happened is a result of something else happening, which was a result of something else before that l ad infinitum.
There's a phrase which perfectly nails this for me:
'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions'
Ukraine's Holodomor wasn't the only genocide being perpetrated at the time. Kazakh famine of 1930-1933 -- wiped out ~40% of the Kazakh population; for the same reason.
I remember hearing that Ukrainians outside of Ukraine were also targeted. Somehow people use that to say it’s not what it is because it happened in other places than Ukraine.
@@seppo532 not only ukrainians and not only in Ukraine - whole Chernozemye region was target of "Holodomor"
I heard about the Kazakhs, I think other minorities in the USSR also took a hell of a beating during that period. Folks who proudly proclaim that there was/is no racism in communist countries need their heads examined.
Here's a fun thought for you.
Why were there so many Jews in Poland come 1939? They weren't that many in 1917.
There's a whole extra level to what happened to the Kazakhs with the red army death squad's hunting the nomads
As a historian (of Byzantine History), I am so glad to see you setting the record straight here. I've seen a lot of revisionism making headway in the West recently regarding the Crusades, particularly about how they were a totally offensive and entirely genocidal act by Europe. I've spent much time explaining to many friends of mine how the First Crusade was largely a continuation of the Byzantine-Seljuk Wars, as it was the Byzantine Emperor who (somewhat inadvertently) triggered the First Crusade. And this idea that the Crusaders were genocidal in the Holy Land is entirely false. As you correctly pointed out, we are well aware that this was not a genocidal act because we have clear evidence of Crusaders behaving in such a way in other places and against other enemies (The Baltic Pagans and the Cathars come to mind). The history of the Crusades have lately come to be used by many particularly in the west as a political tool, and this is a perfect example.
Yeah, Baltic crusades are underrated in the whole Crusader lore. They've done really bad to some Europeans. I remember that they enslaved, pillaged and raped their way to Nicopolis (where they had their asses handed to them rightfully so)
Hey yo let's go to the holy land: Sacks Mannheim for no reason whatsoever
I’m sure these Jews in the Rhineland are in kahoots with the Turks
Please make more videos like this one and the Carolingian renaissance. They are really good.
Videos re-examining general myths and common conceptions are very interesting and thought provoking.
Thank you, and have a happy new year
This is something my ethics professor spoke about, the overuse of genocide in areas where it doesn't fit so well (such as The Crusades) not only waters down the term itself, but also obfuscates actual crimes against humanity committed.
Sadly, I think we’ve already reached the point where genocide has lost most of its meaning.
@@kingleech16 One could say the meaning of the term got genocided.
Huehuehue
To be fair, I kinda felt the opposite happen. Nowadays, a lot of people will argue that an atrocity against innocent people doesn't qualify as Genocide unless it reaches a morbid enough level of destruction, which tends to align with people's standards of Medieval times in terms of cruelty. Our standards for what qualifies as genocide were set by that level of cruelty in past times, specifically to avoid it in modern times. To say they weren't because "the morality and rules of war were different back then" doesn't help. Yes they were not as bad within their past context, from their specific perspective, and while we can offer the benefit of doubt for those long dead people, we shouldn't doubt its nature in a modern context for the sake of historical neutrality. Those people didn't have the concept of Genocide written down. None of those acts could fit that criteria. But we can judge it and name it as such today, in order to know what not to do anymore.
Already, actions such as those in Gaza and the Uyghurs in China, as well as Russian rethoric regarding Ukraine, are being scrutinized to remove the tag of Genocide, solely on ideas of "is not as bad as what used to happen over 100 years ago" or "those people have different standards for warfare and culture".
Just as we need to look at history with a neutral lense, we must also draw a line for present events, and not use the same excuses we use to contextualize past events, else we normalize doing them again from a pragmatic sense of "they weren't evil when they did it, so neither are we if we are to do it now". Usually, it is a safer bet to criticize acts of violence more harshly, than to water them down as products of long outdated circumstances, so that we can move away from them.
@@vladstefan5216 Ngl both can be true, a mass killing doesnt make a genocide, and a genocide can be more than just physically killing the group (can cover intentional starvation, deprivation, etc.), all in all leads to a lot more obfuscation. Thanks for bringing this up, these are good points
@vladstefan5216 Isreal is not committing a genocide in Gaza.
It is extremely hard to get students to not look at history from a modern perspective. Have been trying in my classes, but modern judgment makes it very hard to look at the past objectively.
Yes. I am not a teacher but i have seen that too many times. As said in this video: We have to stop applying modern values to history. Yes we can compare to modern standards, but first we have to compare with the values of that time. "Older" films with stories playing in the late 19th and 20th century USA maybe called racist by modern standards, but they can still be super progressive towards civil right for their time.
Change does not go overnight, changes in society need time and often multiple stages of standards that have to become the new social values of most of the people. And exactly that is why nobody can use the standards of our status of social values to really "measure" the acts of people who lived 50, hundreds or even thousands of years ago.
If you apply modern day standards, then the founder of the Muslim faith is a paedophile, since he took as his wife a child of 12 years old.
But this statement is considered to be offensive.
@@joesheridan9550 years is not even a whole lifetime.
I use the 'washing your hands for surgery' analogy. Someone might reasonably have worked out that clean hands were good, but judging everyone that way through history just doesn't work.
My students always ask me if x was good or bad and I have to be like well these people don’t think the way we do so good or bad to them, good to us today or what
You hit the nail on the head when you said "We can't keep forcing our 21st Century views on subjects we study in history. Or else we loose the understanding of how it happened and we will just end up repeating the same mistakes." Excellent video, really enjoyed this one for the history you brought to light and the common sense mythbusting you performed here.
It seems the historian is cursed to try his hardest in the face of his own biases to get to the truth, only to have his work willfully misinterpreted by politics and pop culture.
Yes, that hits the nail on the head pretty well 😅
It's funny how the algorithm doesn't help you unless you do something controversial, but if your controversial topic isn't something they agree with it also doesn't help you. Yup. Ultimate platform right there. Only let one type of thought reach the masses, because that's how you get people to be open-minded.
HoH should join Nebula.
It worked for me this was my first video on this channel
Ridley Scott can also shoulder some of the blame for modern perceptions of the crusades thanks to his film Kingdom of Heaven and how it portrayed the crusaders and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Hell fucking yes he can
To be fair, given what we understand of Islam, he went easy on them to avoid being Charlie Hebdo'd
@@ryanparker4996 More like he's known for being VERY anti-Catholic! On a side note they used historically accurate Trebuchets in Kingdom of Heaven, which he directed, so not sure how he thought he could get away with using what I am assuming were likely the same ones in Gladiator II - the most unnecessary sequel in the last 20 years! lmao
Ridley scott is a hack.
Hated that movie so much, I walked out. How he portrayed the Templars is inexcusable.
Rhodesia? Indian Partition? Oh, dear, oh, dear, oh, dear. You do have your work cut out.
Especially with the latter, we need to put him in protective custody with that one. The Indian government has already sponsored an assasination in Canada over the Khalistanis.
@@avroarchitect1793 india has become so weird man.
@@TopatTom not really, they've always been like this. We are just seeing them without the British influences anymore.
@@avroarchitect1793 Uh oh, now you'll be branded a "colonialist", which is also DEFINITELY the same thing as a "racist", since words began to be redefined by people with a poor understanding of language.
@@avroarchitect1793 "nuh uh Modi is totally a democratic leader! 100% not involved in criticism of him being shut down and journalists' offices being raided... toooootaalllly"
Laden, O. B will fit right into my holiday reading list
I'm historically laughing at this.
Modern people, *particularly* those that do not understand how the Laws of War work or were actually developed over history, cannot grasp the idea that, in pre-modern warfare, the sacking of a city and massacre of the residents was not only *in accordance with* the Laws of War at the time, it was done in lawful reprisal specifically *because the defenders had VIOLATED the accepted Laws of War* .
The critical point is understanding the true purpose.ofnthe Laws of War and how they develop.
*The Laws of War do not exist to make warfare "nice", "clean", or "civilized".* The Laws of War are intended to *reduce the overall cost of war* by encouraging negotiations and surrender over destroying everything of value (including the population).
Thus, why sacking a city if it fails to surrender when required by the norms was not an "atrocity" by the then existing Laws of War. It was intended to discourage futile defenses that could have no logical ending other than the amount of destruction and death in the city.
Why keep defending if the only result is that you have to repopulate and rebuild more, when you could have avoided that expense either seeing an unstoppable.force arranged outside the gates, or after the first "practicable breach" was made in the defenses, or after being besieged for X days without a relief column showing up?
Note there was no corresponding penalty for *successfully* repelling an attack - that was considered to be bad leadership on the part of the *attackers* and thus the penalty falls on the attacking force in the form of the blood and treasure lost in the attempt.
Got any sources? or is this yet another case of "I made this up to justify the evils of my cult in the past"
It is also worth noting that the casualties of a siege generally fell disproportionately on the attacking side. Partly because attacking high walls defended by people shooting from cover is inherently costly….. and partly because large numbers of men in temporary accommodation, no sewers and little or no fresh food, inevitably suffered high casualty rates from disease.
An army conducting multiple sieges could lose so many men that the campaign would fail and defeat be inevitable, even tho they won all or most of their sieges.
Therefore it made a great degree of sense to provide the defenders with an INCENTIVE to make a rational assessment of their prospects of success EARLY, by demonstrating that the stakes went up as the defence was prolonged. In other words, you don’t get to inflict great casualties on the attackers, then walk away with your family and portable wealth intact “because white flag”.
If you make everyone else suffer, you will suffer too.
Shit laws then.
@@TheWizardboy5 Since YT filters comments and replies that contain links, that cannot be done. Personally I'm not book read on the era so cannot put any references forward in that regard.
However the authour of this video has provided all their sources used for reading, and given the topic may include the evidence that you are looking for.
Alternatively, and YT comments are the only time I condone this as it's generally a poor fallacy, you can simply Google it. There is plenty of discussion regarding this, plenty of this exact question being asked before you with plenty of high quality answers.
That is, of course, you are serious about learning the topic and not simply a person who thinks that replying with 'souce bro' to something they don't like is somehow a rebuttal.
@@anton2192...yes? Have you actually watched this video. That is literally the exact point that is being made in the video.
That judging the past by today's customs is a bad way to learn history.
In 3000 years time they will probably think that the laws we have now are primitive and backwards. And they would be right in many instances.
There are also many things that previous civilisation did better than us that we've gone back on. And that may be the case for 3000year future civs as well.
As someone with a background in theology and church history, this is a perspective a lot of people miss because they get their information on the crusades from terrible sources. Also my boy syncretism getting a shout out, a word that is critically underused by explains a lot of religious phenomena over the centuries.
The truth of the matter is that almost all the sources people cite about the Crusades are inaccurate, not because they're written by bad historians a long time ago, but because they're not written by historians at all- they're written by polemicists, both Islamic and Protestant (I say this as a Protestant theologian myself- if you read a lot of early Reformation era literature it really is nothing except polemic, there is no defending it from a modern rational perspective as the facts were sometimes wholesale fabricated or created to suit narratives for no purpose other than to harm the Catholic church and paint it as backwards). For example, the Children's Crusade, as it exists in popular misconception, never happened. There is an event that serves as an origin, with children crossing the Alps to go to Rome as part of a movement that would have become a crusade, but the pope at the time sent them back because, well, sending thousands of kids to go retake the Holy Land is insane.
And popular discourse around the crusades is muddled and confused, showing a real misunderstanding of what a crusade even is- for example, Wikipedia even lists the Spanish Armada as a crusade, and while there was a religious dimension to the Spanish-English conflict at the time it was by no definition that any credible academic I'm aware of would accept a crusade. Likewise, the Reconquista, a war with definite religious overtones, is listed as a crusade despite not being an attempt to reclaim the Holy Land, having extremely messy and often interfaith alliances, and being a conflict originating in an Islamic invasion of a Christian region (admittedly not a Christian region for very long at the time). A lot of the conflicts identified as crusades are simply conflicts with religious overtones, but if you look at the history of armed conflict pretty much every conflict through history leverages cultural differences in one way or another- the Russian invasion of Ukraine could be categorized as a crusade if you want to emphasize the religious schism between the Russian and Ukrainian orthodox churches under such a broad definition, but the people pushing for that broad definition only want it because it serves a revisionist worldview where the Catholic Church, as a proxy for a modern "West", is a colonialist power similar to modern industrialized empire.
However, the category of Crusade is applied to wars involving Catholic powers strictly for the purposes of making Catholic Europe into a monolithic colonial power for narrative purposes, which it was not, and the motivations of the various participants in the many conflicts listed as crusades are no more religious than the motivations of many different factions throughout history. Religion is simply a strong way to motivate people to go to war- even ethnic ties can be messy when populations coexist for an extended period of time, but confessions of faith are usually delimited neatly and you can demonize a religion off of its most extreme examples very easily. But there are a lot of inclusions by different groups of different wars for different reasons to present ideological positions that really bend any organized definition. I would academically say that a crusade is a war sanctioned by the Catholic church involving the Holy Land (which itself is a very broad definition to be charitable) but that would undermine several of the popularly defined crusades and almost all of the ones listed by revisionists (the Reconquista, the Spanish Armada) and several popular ones like the Children's Crusade (which is itself a myth) by their nature.
Some of the major events associated with the Crusades that are defined as "religiously motivated" when really they are not- for example, the sack of Constantinople is done by mercenaries who weren't paid, not a Catholic force looking to unseat Orthodoxy. In fact, the looting that took place during the sack of Constantinople was done at the threat of excommunication from the Catholic church! Though, admittedly, how credible a threat that is when Catholic institutions happened to end up with much of the treasure over the next several years is perhaps somewhat dubious, just like how war crimes often entail harsh punishments but nations tend to protect their own soldiers even against insurmountable evidence. However, most of the crusades involved temporal motivation as well as religious ones- pardons for crimes (and sins, too, so there is a religious element there), the possibility of treasure and conquest, and even simply trying to send away potential threats to local power to prevent local wars by having possible rivals and idle soldiers march on Jerusalem. While I don't want to discount the role of religious fervor in the Crusades, as it certainly did play a part, it's not uniquely religious, or even more religious in nature than wars launched by pagan or Islamic forces in the same region.
As a tangent, a lot of the anti-Western revisionism (both Islamic and generally anti-Catholic) ignores the fact that the Christian invaders were, in fact, invading in response to Islamic invasions of "Christendom" that had displaced and subjugated Christian populations of the region- and while I don't want to pass a value judgement on historical factions through a modern lens too tritely I do think the modern revisionists who point to Catholic "aggression" while absolving Islamic invasions of all guilt are disingenuous hypocrites- both religions built empires on blood, though the amount of blood is exaggerated by polemicists on the other side. This is often obfuscated by romantic revisionism of life under Islamic rule, but like all empires through history, while you can find examples of Christians and Jews living peacefully under Muslim rule, it is not the only scenario and Islamic empires practiced many things that we would consider barbaric by modern sensibilities (though, to extend the same lens to the Islamic empires as to the Catholic church, many of these were not unusual for the time nor motivated solely by religion like some radical revisionists would
The origin of the Crusades is relatively mundane compared to what the revisionists want to say. While there were attempts to retake Jerusalem, it was never a true attempt to eradicate Islam. The Crusades have their origin in organizations designed to ensure the protection of pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem, and was not uniquely targeted at Islam but also was also intended to protect pilgrims on their journey through Europe and modern Turkey, which were not stable or safe. While Catholic leaders did have a concept of retaking the Holy Land long before the Crusade, you would be hard pressed, even with the extreme polemic against Islam by some Catholics (which is not exclusive to Catholicism- polemic is one of the most common forms of discourse, even to this day when we think of ourselves as more "enlightened") to find anyone involved with the Crusades who had a war goal of actually eradicating Islam. While some of the more grandiose and absurd leaders may have thought they could convert the wayward Muslims to Catholicism, almost no Catholics actually thought, short of some kind of divine intervention or second coming of Christ (look, I'm in agreement that the crusades were not a g-word, but some of the crusaders were a bit nuts), that they would actually eradicate Islam.
Ultimately, bad history is almost entirely responsible for the understanding of the Crusades, whether it's the early Protestant polemic, Islamist revisionism, far right revisionism (which I hesitate to categorize as Christian revisionism per se because I believe that they're often nationalist or racist groups using Christian identity as a cover, but I'm aware some people would call Christian despite being anathema to any orthodox understanding of Christianity- they're heretics, literally speaking), or just lazy sensationalized history. People accept absolutely inaccurate sources and narratives with no critical thought and it leads to people who understand very little of the historical, cultural, or religious contexts. This leads to absurd situations where some people believe that Christians invaded the Holy Land to take it from the Muslims (who had always been there, of course, somehow, or had taken it by completely peaceful means and not, you know, conquest), or that the Crusades were purely righteous endeavors intended only to save souls and protect the innocent (they were motivated by religious fervor to be sure, but also greed and politics as much as anything else), or any other number of absurd and intellectually inconsistent explanations for what ultimate is a very difficult to explain series of political, social, and religious factors combining over centuries (often in different and dynamic ways simplified into one pea sized narrative for the point of selling books or ideology).
Small addition:
> Though, admittedly, how credible a threat that is when Catholic institutions happened to end up with much of the treasure over the next several years is perhaps somewhat dubious,
The threat might have been really credible so this might be the exact reason why Catholic institutions happened to end up with much of the treasure over the next several years. As a good old bribing attempt to avert excommunication. 😉
The whole "response to an invasion of Christendom" thing is something that tends to be ignored despite how big of a deal it was at the time. No matter how much people say "oh it was all a justification for their own geopolitical ambitions", it only works as a justification because Muslims DID just recently conquer almost half the Christian world. What were they supposed to do, nothing?
It’s crazy how many people point to the Crusades as a reason religion is bad (cause it causes these horrible wars!) but don’t know the origins of the Crusades. The first crusade, for example, was purely defensive. The Seljuks invaded the Byzantine Empire, who were Christian, so the Byzantine empire called on Christendom to help and these countries used religion as a rally cry. For most of the Crusades, religion was more of a rally cry/propaganda piece rather than a cause. It’s no different than Union propaganda from the American Civil War calling the South Rebs, or WW1 Entente Soldiers calling the Germans Fritz or Jerry, or WW2 soldiers calling the Germans Krauts.
As someone literally *from* Jerusalem, and studied historical geography & culture in the university there, I have to thank you. This is very correct.
This was a very "normal" siege by Mediterranean standards, and the cultural continuity is easy to see in the very buildings of the Old City
(i.e. while some new churches were built in the christian quarter, the mosques remain as well. Dome of the Rock exists, and if the crusaders had truly set the "new normal" to genocide the muslim reconquest would have torn down all the churches in retaliation).
This modern level of violence is a modern import.
Huh, I never heard of the crusades as genocidal. Never even thought of them that way, to be honest. The way the Church was killing the s--t out of heretics at the time kind of overshadowed the relatively tame killing in the holy land.
its soly made up by a bunch of antichristians comparing islamic jihads (especially the recent ones) then gaslighting everyone that the christians were always just as bad or worse than modern muslim terrorists. in reality the crusades were at first a response to the terrifyingly rapid expansion of the khalifat that needed an equal response. it worked the muslims largely stopped majorly expanding into the whole of europe job done then it broke down to christian infighting and secular power hungry reasons. luckily muslims werent and arent nearly as united as europeans believe and they have muslim and secular infighting just as much as christian kingdoms
@@laisphinto6372I mean there was genocidal crusades though, such as the northern Crusades, which scholars agree were genocidial in nature as they intended to wipe out the people of the Baltics
@Swan_River_Cowboy When people say crusade, they tend to mean the middle east, rather than, say, the crusade against the Cathars in Iberia. Also genocidal, weirdly unknown these days for the number of people who died.
@@MartynWilkinson45 there are 2 definition of crusade you can go by "christian version of jihad" or "those odd wars to the back the holy lands"
@alexandrub8786 I go for "wars started on the orders of the pope and called crusade by the church"
We can all thank the Crusades for bringing kitchen sinks to Europe.
So useful for washing Saladin.
I honestly don't know whether to boo or cheer. I'm impressed.
@@dominictemple BOORUNS
let that sink in!!
😂 very good.
Is that where you toss your Saladin?
Have you done The Trouble in Ireland?
eta: Russian ship Ursa Major just sank. Maybe you can add that to the list of why Russian navy sucks. It's not a warship, but it's still government owned.
A proper discussion of the Irish “troubles” would have to include what the Irish had been doing to each other, long before the francophone Anglo-Normans were invited in as hired muscle for an Irish civil war.
@@peterwebb8732the Troubles would have to be a 10 hour series with lots and lots of nuances and anecdotes 😅
@@ad_astra5 Hell just picking out the music and using it appropriately without his car exploding after publishing the video, will take days of work
@ad_astra5 "It's complex"...
I don’t think a lot of people can reconcile the facts that genocides exist and are occurring right now and that very violent actions, especially in the past, doesn’t necessarily mean genocide.
I had to look up the wooden doors thing, I now feel stupider as a result. Yes, wood can indeed be made air tight, they made wooden diving bells back in the day.
Thank you. I didn't know what he was talking about.
From your comment, I think I have enough context not to explore any further 😂.
See also caulking
Lol. Lmao, even.
Those boxes of shoes really got to you, huh?
In my pursuit of a history degree I keep getting given text books that are so heavily biased toward modern perceptions of history that paradoxically say “stop looking at history with bias”. It’s maddening
Try reading the original works, perhaps? Even though the translators' bias will inevitably creep in, it forces the reader to engage with someone who literally lived there. Once we understand victorian era biases we can better remove them from the way we study and narrate History in modernity
Oooh. No punches pulled on anyone's shitty misuse and misunderstanding of history. 10/10. subbed.
UA-cam: Put out content that generates drama!
Also UA-cam: Don't say the G-word
NGL this is a great video with a lot of nuance concerning the Crusades
I feel bad for your notifications man, prepare for the firestorm
@ I am prepared, but thank you for your concern
What a totally insane thing to say.
"If you want a trad wife get ready to lose her to tuberculosis in 5 minutes." OK first of all if that's how it actually was in the past we wouldn't be here at all... And that harshness doesn't discredit the idea of tradition, it reinforces it. If the conditions our ancestors lived in were so much harsher than today, then wouldn't it make sense to note the things they had to do to survive? If tradition was so bad, wouldn't it have resulted in their untimely death?
Secondly, the medical technology or living conditions are decoupled from the social meaning of what people mean when they say something like a "trad wife." Usually, they aren't even talking about something from the Middle Ages, but rather something that was here, oh say 50 years ago. The point has nothing to do with going straight to the past warts and all. It's a commentary on the current status of society. You don't have to agree with the point they are making, but that kind of reaction is only proving your huge bias and making yourself look the fool.
While I mostly agree with this video, two things bother me.
First, the siege of Nicaea. It's not an apt comparison. The city resisted and would likely have been sacked according to the rules of war, but, the Romans who didn't want that to happen, cut a deal with the defenders and took the city for themselves, denying the Crusaders the right to sack the city.
Second. The sack of Jerusalem and the wider First Crusade definitely was NOT a genocide, on that we agree. However, we do know that even for the time, the sack of Jerusalem was particularly brutal and that's something both Christian and Islamic sources agree on, with the generally agreed on casualties being between 3.000 to 10.000. which is still a lot of people, a tenth to up to a third of the population of the city.
EDIT: Some grammatical errors.
Nicaea was also Roman, and Roman forces were the first to breech the city and deny the Western Crusaders any loot. This would be one of the first troubles between Alexios I and the rest of the Crusader nobles until they split.
Thank god someone else said it. It irked me that he compared Nicaea to Jerusalem when the circumstances were entirely different for these. The Romans were definitely afraid that the Crusaders might sack the city, so they seized the city first to prevent just that.
I remember having this debate years ago with a girl my age, she was furious when I said that “they (Muslims) we’re at the very least just as bad, it was a war but they didn’t go to erase Muslims”
Saladin committed massacres.
"Just as bad", yeah, no. These bathless Huns massacred Jerusalem, burned the Library of Tripoli, and ate people at Al-Marrah. Sorry, no. It was a war, indeed - like the one that Atilla launched against the Roman Empire.
Dude, I thought you will talk about the "Albigensian Crusade". It's so interesting because there's an active debate wether there was an active and organized heresy in Occitania or a church critical, reformist movement. ....
You see, that one was genocidal. The only way to argue otherwise is if you don't consider the Cathars people.
Some brief maths for the river of blood the average height of an arabian horse is 1.6 meters and a 1.6 cubic meter space is 1600 litres. Than multiply that by 300,000meters the number of meters per kilometre. which is 480 000 000 litre than divide that by 5 litres than average number of blood in a human body which would give the number of dead at least needed that being 960,000,000. So just shy of 1 billion people which the city population could no way reach
Also like...how would that work? Why is the blood just staying in the city and not flowing out?
lol I had no idea that any of this was controversial. Just kinda the best understanding we have at the minute. But I'm not terminally online.
Modern People:
"People starting wars over religion, what nonsense!"
>Starts war over what color hat Karl Marx wants us to wear.
>Builds camps for people who don't want to hear the hat.
It is one of the modern ironies that there are none so intolerant as those who demand tolerance from others.
History is not always black and white.
I'm not a fan of the Crusades and I think they were about as justified as any other Medieval conflict (that is to say, not) but calling the Crusades (in the holy land) genocidal is completely nonsensical, and this is coming from a registered member of a Left Wing Canadian party (NDP)
bruh the NDP is the worst
@@adamelghalmi9771 (Provincial) NDP
Ngl mate they were justified since it was a response to centuries if muslim colonialism
@@crackedhammer4612 arguably not true, but who cares? they happened almost a millennia ago and they were inconsequential, never managed to achieve their long term goals. but i suppose they made the muslims aware that europe weren't as much of backwater as they'd thought, with heavy infantry and calvary.
Thanks!
Thank you!
Arthur Eckstein made a similar point in his book on the rise of the roman empire. Rome is often portrayed as an evil empire, but this image doesn't hold up well when you look at the historical context. Great video!
You know minus the conquest and enslavement thing
@@theAverageJoe25I mean if everyone is doing it then really you are just a better competitor. Evil usually is a juxtaposition to good of which the biggest competition were the Carthaginians who did the same stuff and also burned children alive
@@badart3204 No, enslaving and killing people is still bad lmao
@@theAverageJoe25You’re proving the comment and the author the comment was talking about right. By our modern standards, slavery is a horrendous and evil concept. But, evil is a comparative word. By our modern comparison, these things are evil, but by the standards of the time they aren’t evil, just the norm
Another great video. Keep making stuff.
OMFG, THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO ONE HAS MADE ON TALKING ABOUT THE CRUSADES.
what you SAID at 1:25 is the best thing to ever say and I have so much respect for you saying that.
As a Muslim. every occasion, I hear people like Apostate Prophet ridicule Islam by lying, making stuff up, or falsify things about Islam through presentism and modern lenses. it's the same with every thing related to religion or religious wars. They always use modern lenses or presenting to biasley judge and interpret the past which is the most dishonest way to study history. And with crusades, I always hear one sided views depending on who I'm talking to.
Genuinely, thank you for making this video!
in 614ad the Judeo-Parsian army actually DID genocide Jerusalem. But I guess its always Christians fault😂😂😂😂
This video is fantastic.
I don't care who the Pope sends, even if its my friends, I will NEVER accept the Catholic Church
Throwing hands in NAFO
Insulting belief of a bilion souls beacuse something that happend during medieval times
is one of the most arrogant moves you could make
Once again atheists did way worse things just read anything about 20.century
It's ok, his Holiness forgives you.
@ I am militantly agnostic about this… I’m going to go play solitaire with the Bhuddists
I think that the portrayal of the crusaders as nothing more than bloodthirsty barbarians is simply meant to be red herring to distract from the fact that Islam is a religion of war, forged in the fires of war, and continually fueled by war since its very inception.
It's the classic case of poking someone in the eye and crying foul when they decide to poke back.
Now, I will admit that it seems like Islam wants to shed its mantle of being a religion of war in the modern era, hence the "religion of peace" meme. But it's going to take a long time for that image to change, especially when there are still so many militant extremists Muslims.
Which really sucks for quite possibly the vast majority of muslims who are no doubt average, peace-loving folk.
Thanks for mentioning Holodomor
I made a whole video on it. It was awful to make
@ thanks, will check asap!
Can we all take a moment to appreciate how UA-cam doesn't even know what UA-cam wants? "More controversy!" but also "we will cut off add revenue for spicy words"
Now I know what I sound like during these discussions. Thank you. Have a wonderful holiday season, HoE. Be well, be happy and most of all, be safe.
Happy/Merry whatever doesn't offend you, all. Cheers
Napkin math - An average person has 1.2 to 1.5 gallons of blood in their body. An Olympic Swimming Pool has 660,000 gallon capacity, and is 2m deep × 50m long by 20m wide.
If you assume that everyone in Jerusalem had two gallons of blood, was crammed in on top of each other to wedge in a population ten times bigger than assumed in this video (300,000 instead of 30,000), not a single person was kicked out of the city before the siege, the crusaders killed everyone in the city, and that they perfectly extracted every drop of blood into a concentrated area the size of the pool, you wouldn't have enough blood spilled to fill the pool (600,000 gallons vs 660,000 for the Olympic pool).
Thus we can conclude that a 1.5 meter deep 3km long river of blood would be impossible even if the Crusaders were the most psychotic bastards to weild a sword.
... You might think that. But you've just proven how diluted the true blood has become. /Sarcasm.
You told history so well, told how you should look at it incredibly accurate, you analyzed documents and maps so well. I would give you mouth to mouth.
You don't have to fall in love, there's a cpr barrier with a one way valve so people can't puke in your mouth anymore.
I really appreciate this video. I value historical facts above peoples feelings (my own included) and in recently regarding a certain war in a certain part of the world, people have been spreading falsehoods about a certain country that was attacked simply because it wanted to just exist and live in actual peace.
In the words of my favorite college professor: History is messy, there are never pure good guys and bad guys, these are people with all their complexity and disgusting elements. War is brutal and lots of people die. We cant judge them by our views, we can only see things from their perspective.
Came for the comments, stayed for the video
This is gonna be great. I just hope I can watch it undisturbed...
An old school level historian view of the context and modern embellishment, my goodness I've found another rare gem!
I never thought about the G word in that context before and you're right, it's used improperly a lot
Since my chat comments seem to go up in smoke, let me just say thanks and I'm looking forward to another installment of Russian Navy Shenanigans
There are a lot of words line this (e.g. N, F, C, and H words) that were utterly rendered into meaninglessness by their constant frivolous use.
I’m surprised this video is up lol…I’ve watched it a few times now…great work!
UA-cam: cover controversial topics for clicks!
Also youtube: but don't say anything controversial or else
The crusades were definitely stupid in their inception, but they weren't genocidal, for the most part. At least for the standards set at the time. You're correct.
How were they stupid? The crusades were formed after centuries of muslims incursions
How were they stupid? The crusades were formed after centuries of muslims incursions
It's kind of ridiculous to try and apply the logic of the post-Geneva Convention world to wars fought hundreds of years before the Geneva Conventions existed. Sacking cities was atrocious by design yes... but it was also kind of just how business was done back then (if cities didn't surrender and could not withstand the seige that is). I'm pretty sure there is no example of any medieval army fighting under any banner in history that never sacked a city when on a war of conquest. Wars which in and of themselves did not back then carry the same kind of cultural baggage they do today.
That having been said, the Crusaders of the 1st Crusade - on their way to the Holy Land - did do a whole lot of massacres of Jewish communities in Central and Eastern Europe on their way to the Holy Land (communities which they were in no way supposed to be attacking). That was probably the most genocidal thing in the whole affair.
Those massacres were truly terrible and stringently opposed by the Catholic Church at the time. Almost all of the Bishops in the area did their best to protect the Jews from pogroms.
That needs qualification.
SOME Crusaders decided to massacre Jews. The majority did no such thing. Secondly, there were determined efforts by Catholic Bishops, priests and Catholic Knights (Polish, IIRC) to defend those Jews.
@@bumblingbureaucrat6110 @peterwebb8732 of course, didn't mean to imply it was an organised effort. Just only so much nuance you can fit into a YT comment before suddenly you're writing your own essay. Legitimately did not know about the Catholic priests actively trying to protect the Jewish communities though so thank you for that insight.
I like your argument and i think it's necessary that we separate historical events from mdern political emotions and agendas. However i take issue with your image of the 'christian world'. A map doesn't make a world. It's the mediterranean world with its incredibly rich cultural and religious heritage: egyptian, persian, helenic etc. Christianity (itself extremely heterogenuous) spread through the roman empire, which then collapsed. And then you get expanding islamic states. The early medieval christian church didn't even know what to make of islam. To theologians of the time, it looked almost like another christian heresy. They did recognize Jesus after all in some way. And the lead-up to the first crusade was pure politics. It was the byzabtine empire (who hated the franks) who decided 'hey, let's play the Christendom card to make those suckers fight our wars', and they met an ally in Pope Urban II who had strong political ambitions. None of this is to say that the expanding islamic states were nice or that the crusaders were bad per se. But it was politics.
It's important to note that in both the Christian Roman Empire and medieval Europe, Christianity spread both through royal decree and missionary efforts through lands which were largely conquered pre-Christianity. The Islamic empires, on the other hand, spread through conquest almost exclusively after Islam, and in the name of it.
I think you're discounting the Romans as just accepting Christianity. Remember there was severe turmoil and war over it after Constantine.
Are you taking in account the Saxons during Charlemagne and the northern crusades ?
@@Remington53 not to forget the Reconquista which some claim as a retaking of lands that only really started about 200 years after Iberia was under Islamic rule, less a reconquest more military conquest
@@Swan_River_Cowboy 200 years is not that long though. That's like saying displaced indiginous peoples from the age of colonialism nowadays would be conquerers for wanting their homeland back because it either already has or nearly has been that long. Furthermore, the lengthy delay for uniting is common because these conquerers and colonials arrive to a strained and divided people that need entire generations usually to overlook their history of conflict that can go back to as far as their communities can even remember to fight this new and often at first seemingly small threat that more often than not arrives by offering to help with your enemies next door.
@ fair enough, I concede my point
It makes me cringe when people try to impose modern views on history it's incredibly arrogant and small minded
I just want to say that it's true that the crusades were mostly done for geopolitical ambitions, especially all the ones that came after the first crusade.
....at the same time though, it's kinda hard to ignore that before the Muslim conquests, a lot of that region was previously Christian. In a fairly short amount of time, practically half the Christian world had just been conquered. You know how Georgia just looks like this wierd isolated pocket of Christianity in the region? It used to not be isolated, they were just the one kingdom that managed to survive the annexations. It would not take much for Europeans at the time to see this as an existential threat to their religion with just how quickly they lost so many kingdoms. If it was the other way around it certainly would've been framed as such.
Dude i just watched freddas dogshit video on the crusades where he focused more on making fun of paxtube and Christianity that actually going into genuine depth and making logical arguments and someone in the comments suggested to check this video out and I am so glad I did thanks for putting genuine effort into this video to expose people who don't understand common sense
I have no idea who these other youtubers are but thank you
@@HistoryofEverythingChannel they are just other guys who also made videos on the crusades
Oh boy
Times have indeed changed.
We go to worship and are taught to watch the clergyman and make sure he does not stray from what is written.
The first man named in the bible was a Scotsman, because he wanted everyone to read it.
Sorry to hear that about YT deliberately enshittifying. Forcing everybody to ruin their content on purpose is awful. Going to drive a lot of us away. Merry xmas.... :/
I can’t wait for the Rhodesian video. I love this channel
Ohhhhhh, this is gonna make some people mad.
Godspeed on monetization, my guy!
The crusades were a justified, albeit late response to centuries upon centuries of unrestrained islamic aggression and expansionism and colonization.
Exactly!
Can confirm the algorithm liked this controversy, i was recommended this as a new viewer. 👍
This is gonna be spicy though hopefully it casts off a lot of the revisionism
maybe a hot take but 99% of people talking about crusades have no clue about the crusades. they always merge them together when every single one is a seperate war waged and started for different reasons and motives
@laisphinto6372 often the last ones get used/confused to tar the first ones which were to my mind actually justified.
@@laisphinto6372like genociding the people of the Baltics and Pomerania
@@hammer1349which one were justified?
@@jalleyloney3588 I would argue the first one was definitely justified given just how far the Muslim empire and slave raids had spread across Europe and the Mediterranean. Post that, I will shamefully admit that my knowledge is practically none. I know the last crusades launched at eastern Europe were all kinds of a mess however and should not have happened or atleast been allowed to devolve as they did.
I can absolutely apply modern standards to the distant past. It's interesting and fun. It doesn't really tell you anything about the motivations or actions of the people living then. Good video, 10/10.
8:42 the religion itself teaches peace, like christianity, but it's not followed often. like the ottoman or russian empires, great empires that took over large swathes of land, yet imposed their respective religions on their citizens
The Quran is full of hate and violence. Stop lying to idiots who haven't read it.
Islam does not teach peace but submission. The Quran is mostly about hating outsiders and justifying violence towards them.
Good to see someone saying the actual facts. Good on you mate
22:50 "The ideals of crusading, medieval piety have been stolen in the 20th and 21st centuries."
What crusading ideals?
So the crusaders terrorized other christians harder then they did muslims? The irony is remarkable. I think i remember something about the crusaders sacking Constantinople on thier way to the "holy" land, that place cant catch a break!
This should be informative.... and chaotic.
Thank you for covering this, as there's a lot of misinformation surrounding these damn conflicts. Some good video series cover parts of the timelines, like Extra History's First Crusade and Saladin series, but not videos breaking down subjects like this.
I will be the watchdog
This is just excellent. Honesty in history is needed more than ever. I’m sick of history being rewritten. Sick of history being viewed through a modern political lens.
The crusades were more secular in motive than the name would let on
I think thats a presentism. There really wasn't secular thinking like you or I would understand it back then (much like how there wasn't nationalist thinking). Most everything was related back to god on at least some level. Yes arguably most of the crusaders were very interested in gaining wealth, glory, and new lands. But if you asked them 'what about service to god and saving your soul and others and securing the holy city for pilgrims?' They wouldn't really get what you're saying. That *is* what they're doing. There is no split or contradiction between these two sets of goals.
@@ShadowGricken "Yes, that's why I'm here."
@@ShadowGrickenThere is a lot of documentary evidence WRT to the Crusades. Firstly, most of the evidence points to Crusading being enormously expensive, and no-one was paying off their Crusading debts by shipping loads of treasure.
Secondly, analysis of those who went, tends to show that it was based on families and social groups, not on economic groups. The pattern is much more consistent with religious motivation than commercial.
What bemuses me, is the idea that a region which had been conquered and occupied by the Romans, the Greeks and the Islamists, is going to have abundant treasure just sitting around for the taking. It’s a very resource-poor region and Jerusalem is not some great trading hub.
@@peterwebb8732 Well, actually, Jerusalem (and all cities in Canaan, really) were crucial overland trading hubs since the bronze age. They were the crossroads of Egypt, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia, and all lands around those places too.
@@spartanx9293 oh oh Stinky, how about providing some evidence of that claim instead of talking out of your ass?
There was a take by Byzansimp that Crusades was mostly an attempt to divert the Europeans away from their empire (keep in mind, Normans in Sicily are fighting in Balkans) while also dealing with Pecheneks in north and Turks in east.
Not to mention that relationship between them are super tense…though it also might have narratives and bias based on nationality since Byzansimp is Georgian (the country in Caucasus).
Ironic that this truth should be considered “hard”.
Why would people be reluctant to accept that the violence and suffering of any period has been exaggerated? Why are they so emotionally committed to the narrative of genocide….. unless they WANT the Crusaders/Colonists to be evil?
Look at who runs Hollywood and the media in general. They have a vested interest in making medieval Europeans look evil.
another example of coopting the crusade to fit a modern group , is the modern templars. these guys formed in germany in the early 20h century, and formed colonies in amny places but also in israel, which was a t the time under ottoman and later british rule .
One of the best Rundowns on the Crusades I have heard in a while. I am glad that there are sane voices in humanity like you Sir. Sadly it is not the majority by a long shot.
The goal of the Crusades was not about the destruction of people but rather the destruction of Islam and conquest of the near East and (parts of the) middle East. Many Muslims, civilians and soldiers, died as a result of that, but it wasn't a genocide. Likewise, the Islamic expansion in Spain also wasn't a genocide, it was about conquest and submission of infidels.
Muslim expanded alot more then just spain. They conquered syria, jerusalem, they were in a ongoing war with several balkan states which brought about vlad the impaler. They conquered portugal. They conquered Egypt, anatolia, the iberian peninsula.
@georgeforeman1097 that was not my point, my point was that neither the Muslim conquests nor the Crusades had genocide as a goal.
Greatest christmas present :3
Cool pfp
We had a similar ideological kerfuffle in Canada a few years ago when some radical leftists claimed that the Canadian government's treatment of its first nations populations over the past 150 years amounts to an ongoing "genocide." One group argued that the treatment of Canada's indigenous population makes them feel like it feels like a genocide, therefore, it is a genocide because, feelings. Another group of people said it wasn't a genocide because they have dictonaries and know what words means.
As someone who studied atrocity law as part of my legal education, you are absolutely correct to focus on intent.
The crime of genocide has a strict intent mens rea element. In other words, there needs to be some primary source evidence to prove that the actions to wipe a group of people off the face of the earth were done intentionally, deliberately, or on purpose. To do that, you need something like, for example, the minutes of a meeting where military officers and government officials look at the logistics of rounding up millions of people and transporting them across a continent, by train, to various death camps.
While it is true that the Canadian government's treatment of its first nations populations has been egregious and wrongheaded and just plain bad, it wasn't genocidal. It would be, to be honest, best described as criminal negligence. When it comes to the Residential School system, the Canadian government handed control over to some churches (United and Catholic) with no absolutely no oversight and minimal funding. Today, the Catholic church has a bit of a reputation, and quite a few priests in those schools did things to kids for decades. And the government did nothing--except sit on and ignore reports on what was actually happening for years.
But willful blindness is not, legally speaking, the same thing as deliberate intent. And as you had said in another video: never attribute malice to incompetence.
TLDR: Both genocide and crusading are bad. They're just different kinds of bad.
As a Jewish Israeli man. I totally concur. The intent was and still is potently prevalent - culturally and religiously amongst our "neighbors" who don't even bother hiding it.... Quite the contrary in fact.
That said, one cannot discount the Church's complicity in a past tainted with horrors - and that's a mere understatement.
Time to diss PaxTube in this comment section
This youtuber is based don't bring paxtube's name in this holy site (like i just did )
Don't give that retard any attention
I have no idea who that even is
@@HistoryofEverythingChannelcrazed Christian “the crusaders were justified and really good and actually based” type dude
@@Swan_River_Cowboy I like how on one side you get people lying about it being a genocide to gain more sympathy, and on the other side you get people lying about it going "yea it was, based and cool right??"
History is history, what hard truths can there be
I used to agree that you can’t look at the past through a modern view, but I have grown out of that notion over the last few years. The truth is that is the only way we can look at the past.
No matter how hard we try, we will never be able to properly put ourselves in the heads of a person from 1098AD. We can approximate, we can consider how they may have seen things, and this is a good thing to do. But it is also good that we can look back and condemn. We can say, “It is good that our modern sensibilities tell us to reject bigotry, religious zealotry, and the notion of divine right.” How else are we to avoid the mistakes and horrors of the past?
I think the real problem lurks in trying to transpose modern motivations onto people of the past, as it can cause us to misunderstand and remain blind to political, social, and cultural forces that motivated historical events.
You mentioned Sigismund, which in Czech is Zikmund. We have pun-nickname for him Zmikund, which in english would be Sigisc*nt. Just a fan fact, carry on...
The Crusades were only "genocidal" by coincidence. As they progressed from one to the next, the religious element increasingly became only a surface veneer to hide the real political and economic motives behind them. The Fourth Crusade in particular was a hit job. Pope: "No, I totally didn't order the Crusaders to sack Zadar! It's just a coincidence that Zadar was an economic rival of my supporters in Venice!" (wink wink)
i think people should stop using genocide all the damn time. best example is "caesar genocided the gauls" which is wrong the word is massacred a few but gauls were in his legions, gauls paid taxes , for crying out loud it was caesar who invited gauls into the senate and they stayed a backbone for roman armies for the next centuries. genocide is a recent word made up in the 20th century just like fascism. it doesnt work hamfisting that term into the past as well because the fasces are a republic symbol from the roman republic heck the goddamn "muh freedom" USA has fasces litterally in its symbols
@@laisphinto6372what??? Fascist was made up by fascists though… it was literally the name of Mussolini’s party
But after the backlash from the sack of Zara, the Pope excommunicated everyone. After that it was Byzantine politics, and their unpaid frankish mercenaries. That would have their gold one way or another...
May be going too far but Dandolo was the 13th century Prigozhin.
There, I said it, fight me
@@Swan_River_Cowboy Yeah, but like swastika the fasces is _way_ older than the buckos that cause it a bad name, and was used not only by them.
The main motivation was simply to secure the holy sites for pilgrims, and the Seljuk Turks slaughtering pilgrims was the final crime that triggered the 1st Crusade. Conversion of the locals was not even considered.