Doy. Sorry for the error. Orthodox existed way before 1054, I just meant decades since the split. If they did reunify they'd go back to how it was before the Schism, not to the Catholic Church. I didn't mean to make that big of a flub on that.
AlternateHistoryHub How about Poland that invited crusadors into prussia? The Crusadors betrayed Poland and formed a religious state of Marian Order that after many wars became Prussia-state that unified Germany.
AlternateHistoryHub the Crusaders sounded like the Nazis( I am Catholic but I hated all of this killings, the Germans hates the holocaust , for us Catholics its the same thing )
So I wanted to talk more about the Byzantines. After the Fourth Crusade, Constantinople was pretty much wiped out, and never recovered. Without this Crusade, Constantinople could have stood a greater chance against the invading Turks, perhaps lasting past our timeline in 1453. The stress of the Crusades, weakened the Byzantines in the long run and isolated them from their Western counterparts. This made them easier targets (with some Crusaders even allying with the Turks against the East). Without the wars, the Byzantines could have remained some sort of influencer in the society of the 16th centuries. Instead of being overtaken by the Ottomans. Maybe even a mini state in Greece as a remnant of the empire? Perhaps. That is just one scenario though.
AlternateHistoryHub My countery might have bee more developed had the Ottomans not defeated the Byzantine. 500 years of Ottoman rule really set us back compared to the rest of Europe.
carn109 British blockade of France and Russian invasion. Who knows who would win the resulting Russian - French war. But since most of Europe was sick of French rule, it would only be a matter of time before a new coalition defeated Napoleon.
***** America had a long standing policy of Non-Interventionism from it's starting days up to joining the Second World war, to the point that the Republicans in the last months of President Wilson's term voted against joining the United Nation because it would mean that America would join wars to defend nations, (can we get those Republicans Back instead of the Warmongering scoundrels currently plague the world?)
Kkostas Anagno the mess in Vietnam is one of those things that could've been avoided if America held to it's Non-Interventionism, but no, it had to become the Warmongering state it currently is :(
***** You mean instead of go back to the Monroe-Doctrine, the united states would become an active part in the world. Intresting. That would change so much: 1. A much more stable and stronger League of Nations 2. Maybe a nicer treatment of the losers of WWI 3. With those pionts mentioned. Nations like Germany or Italy could be much more stable and maybe even democratic. I personally think that would be a great scenario.
***** For Europe yeah. Their were few centralized states and progress had driven to a halt. Massive numbers of freelance knights killed thousands, and most other people were impoverished.
***** The frustration when someone calls the middle ages and renaissance eras "dark ages", instead of the period from the fall of the roman empire, to fuel their aggression and contempt for religion.
+Sir George Severn Christianity and Islam were the centers of the arts during the Middle Ages, just not in West Europe. Constantinople was devoutly Christian and retained Roman civilization. Baghdad and Mecca were centers of teaching for their day, as well as centers of Islam
"The more cultural Arabs and Byzantines". What? Am I missing something or is he saying that Europe had less culture than the eastern world? If anything Europe had a way broader spectrum of different and rich cultures.
I'm aware of that, but not all of Europe was Catholic. We still had the Vikings up north, the Sami above them, etc. It's not like Europe was this unified lump of Christianity who lacked all form of culture.
If the Crusades never happened, many democratic nations wouldn't exist. Richard "The Lionheart" would stay at England, and he is not overthrown by his younger brother, which means no Magna Carta. Also, US would be practicing Islam, due to the Iberian Peninsula being controlled by the Muslims. :)
Stop whining. Think critically. Debate. And if you can't stand, that people have different opinions and say their mind, than, please, go to a country where you don't have to "endure" that. Like North Korea, communist China or Saudi Arabia.
The weak will be brushed to the side like ash, leaving two lines to remain. The strong understand that sides must be taken, and the weak are removed as unnecessary.
Bobby Alam Not all people are intellectual. Not all people really mean, what they are writing. And some people are just misguided, dumb, lunatic, radical or simply a**holes. Being in the comment section is like being in an official room filled with people who are wearing masks and talk to each other - or just with themselves. You can just leave the room, or you try to listen and debate with others. Maybe you can change their view on things. Maybe you learn something new, learn and research new fields of view and facts and change your own opinion on things. And the internet is not "cancer". The internet is a great invention, especially for people, who live in nations like "communist" China, where they cannot say, what they are thinking at all. And I get, what you want to say. CHina is not really communist (since communism cannot work in reality). "Communist" China is a socialist, one-party dictatorship.
Hashashin would still exist without the crusades as most of their enemies were other Muslims. The Templars *might* still exist but their name wouldn't be "templars" as that namesake was taken from "temple" in Jerusalem after the success of the 1st crusade.
the racist Knight of Jesus who killed and raped civilians? Even fellow Christians? Ohh please, those fanatic Deus Vult were no more than today's 'Islamic' terrorists, like ISIS or Al Qaeda, doing the so-called 'Jihad', but in fact they both did it for their own personal benefit.. the difference is that these twisted knights had the Pope (the greedy old fuck who had more power than any king) on their back, and the 'Islamic' terrorist has only the local warlords and the CIA on their back.
@Chaz Hagen, as much as the wars were in reclamation and defense, the crusaders weren't good or right either. They only had the moral high-ground insofar as they had some reasonable justification for the wars. Other than that, they were still just members of failed wars that resulted in the death and terrorizing of many innocent civilians and opposing soldiers.
@@caezero2072, you seem mostly correct, but the comment is quite difficult to read with many technical errors. If you would like to encourage calm, scholarly discussion rather than the name calling from Chas Hagen, then I would recommend some level of revision.
Gamer 47 What if the Mongols never Sacked Baghdad. It destroyed the Islamic Caliphate, and destroyed the biggest and most advanced city at the time. Islam was also the well of knowledge at the this time until the Mongols.
Dude: what if the crusades nev... *dude gets beheaded by a crusader* Crusader: CRUSADES WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN!!!! DEUS VULT DEUS VULT AVE MARIA BURN YOU INFIDELS AND BURN YOU SHALL
+Shadow77999 The Islamification of europe stopped at the Tours. Which happened 300 years before the crusades. But I guess your statement could be true.
+cobra888 and Sicilia was a Muslim Emirate from 840 to 1090... 4 years before the crusades. And all the Raids against Rome by Muslims until that date, doesnt see the conection this page?? and Dont Forget about Spain.-
I haven't forgotten about Spain. In fact the Tours happened after they occupied Spain. But ever since that there hasn't been any significant attempts to occupy Europe. Not until the Ottomans, whom occupied some after the crusades.
What if Constantinople never fell to the Ottomans/Turks? What if France won the French and Indian War? What if Rome conquered all of Parthia? Would Rome make direct contact with Han China?
I'll make the Rome winning over Parthia : with control over Parthia (or at least Persia), although the newly conquered provinces may be hard to keep, this is a much lesser problem than having the Parthian then Sassanid empires. This makes the east of the Empire even stronger. Contacts with China wouldn't be much of a problem since you can't really march an army between mainland China and Persia (deserts, afghan mountains...). In Persia, the greek culture would have been heavily promoted. Perhabs some provinces would have rebelled into small kingdoms but still nowhere near a pain in the ass as a persian empire. The Empire may still be cut, perhabs with the separation placed more at the east than at our timeline. Byzantium was still a "5-stars premium location" and perhabs even more important since the area around Syria and Mesopotamia would be more peaceful than in our timeline (because the Romans and whatever persian empire wouldn't constantly be at war), making a more profitable trade with the East. Rome had contacts with China in our timeline (through Persia) btw. Perhabs making Constantinople the border city between east & west. This would also bring eastern technologies faster, like paper and gunpowder. Without constant war in the sector, the muslims wouldn't have expended as much as in our timeline. Sure there would still be civil wars between emperors and usurpers but not as weakening. They would certainly not have taken Egypt and thus north Africa. Should the West have also fallen to "barbarians", with still not the persian border to care about, Justinian (if he exists in this timeline) would have made greater conquests. Perhabs the East would have taken the core provinces of the West (Italy, Africa...) while only letting the border areas (Gaul, Britain...) to germanic tribes. Who were a lesser evil if they kept the Empire as a model The border with India now ? Well, I believe Afghanistan is a good enough buffer zone, much easier to hold a frontier there than in Mesopotamia...
Connor Dunn You mean my latest EU4 game XD Also one of my EU4 games XD Well basically TW Rome game of mine lel Ok to be serious I can't really see how Constantinople can not be taken by the Turks, although the best I could see is the Byzantines being a Ottoman Vassal. If Rome Conquered Parthia? Well I don't really see them contacting China since you know, desserts and mountains between them. But if that was the case then the Eastern Rome would've been much more prominent and strong. Heck I bet Adrianople wouldn't had happened if the East Rome had the riches of the East
They sorta had a contact through 2 roman explorers (and I mean 2 bodies) entered Han China and introduced Silk to the Europeans. They even met the emperor.
HenrySims Odds are little would change. The Mongols were just around the corner, most of the states would have fallen to them. It may have also weakened the Mamlucks so much that they would not be able to hold off the mongols, and they would have marched into North Africa.
HenrySims Mongols work quick, odds are the Kingdoms wouldn't be able to call for help in time, and the Pope never called for Crusades against them in real life also is pretty damn bad.
"When I say Crusades, what do you picture?" Well a poorly informed flame war for one thing, but the comments section seems to be lacking that... What I picture is a ridiculous a series of conflicts, wherein both sides are pitted against each other by way of manipulation and lies, orchestrated by either faction's leaders. But that's just my opinion on the matter.
A series of conflicts that would change a portion of the world as we know it - contributing for a mass change in history and being moved by beliefs, not outright lies. If what you're talking about is the religion behind it, I'm sure that was intended as a way of tarnishing its concept. Atheists and irreligious people alike tend to distort reality and use historical events as a way of 'proving' that religion is not a 'good thing'. On my point of view, what sucks about it is that groups of believers of certain religions tend to act in an extremist manner - leaving no room for things such as logic and objective reasoning. One would argue that the same goes for every believer, but that kind of behavior assimilates that of a religious extremist; just as people with extreme views on religion, there are people who aim to destroy it at any cost - kind of like the opposite side goes. Most atheists I know are arrogant, selfish and calculative individuals that aren't any different from who they tend to target, as is shown in the comment this replies to.
Sam Damn... well firstly I'd like to apologize. I should've worded my original comment more precisely, since it could be interpreted as an assault on religion. Make no mistake, I have no problem with religion, I'm not even an atheist as you seem to think I am. I only believe, that religion *can* be a bad thing, and that the Crusades are examples of that potential. Faith can be a beautiful thing, and it has been so on many accounts throughout history and I'm certain it will continue to do so. Religion had little to do with my first comment, as I was mainly speaking on the politics in the war. I meant to talk about the corrupt men of the time, seeking to further their own goals of affluence or power or influence by twisting belief to their own ends. I fear I've chosen my words poorly yet again, but I certainly hope I haven't.
+RovNot I see (at least in case of the first crusade) a conflict that was called for with good intention, but quickly went south due to poor planning and internal power struggles. combine that with some unforeseen events and the less then noble goals of the Nobles who ended up leading the campaign and you get a long conflict and a destabilized region.
"When I say crusades what do you think of?" Crusader Kings II....mostly for the mods like the Elder Scrolls one. Truly its what the knights of medieval Europe would of wanted!
To use the term "Dark Age" is utterly ignorant of historical fact. It is a historical and academic construction which is now outdated. It is largely considered an archaic term with regard to modern historical thought. The presentation of this video is flawed by relying so heavily on the notions implied by the term "Dark Age" I can easily forgive the gross oversimplifications as a necessity, but when you bandy about outdated terminology it makes me wonder how well you research your videos. I have a keen interest in Medieval history, mostly regarding the British Isles and the interactions with the Scandinavian world, but I having studied history and pursuing a Masters in the subject, I find that you are deliberately misrepresenting a term for the sake of doing so. That, or you are ignorant of the proper terminology.
Dude, calm down. If you actually listened to the video, you'd notice that he did not apply the term to the entirety of the Middle Ages, just the time immediately following the collapse of Rome.
Chris Stuart I am perfectly aware of what was stated in the video. However, it is still historically and factually inaccurate. To present the "fall" of the Western Roman Empire as some sort of golden age is misleading. The Western Empire had been on the decline for centuries prior to the final collapse of its authority. Historians consider the Early Medieval period to be a time which still honoured Roman tradition and sought to renew its authority. We can see this clearly through the creation of the Holy Roman Empire in the mid 10th Century. However, the Crusades occurred from the 11th century onward. By this time, Europe had largely moved on from the notion of reforming the Roman empire. There were advances in Philosophy, Education, Architecture and an assortment of other fields. This did not merely spring from the Crusades as it is suggested in this video. As such, to refer to the Medieval Period as the "Dark Ages" is archaic and ignorant.
+T Kent While it's true that in places like Britannia, after the Roman Empire pulled out and before the Roman Pope went on record to include Aenglaland into the Catholic union of nations (410-596 CE) Britain had a rich cultural history. There were other places that were more chaotic, though. The fiefs throughout France, Flanders, Germany, etc for example. I think one could use the term Dark Age to describe the aftermath of the fall of Western Rome. Chaos inevitably follows a power vacuum, and considering just how much of the Mediterranean Rome controlled, just imagine the size of power vacuum left AFTER Rome fell.
matt baber Except there wasn't a power vacuum. The various Germanic tribes ended up establishing kingdoms and holdings of various sizes throughout much of the former Empire and attempted to carry on the traditions of the Western Empire. And, while arguably what would eventually become France and Germany were less centralized than other places, it was far from a Dark Age. The term Dark Age implies regression, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the peoples of Europe regressed during this time, Furthermore, this video is referring to the 11th century as the Dark Ages. This is utterly absurd. Especially if you consider that the Carolingian Empire was established centuries before then and brought some semblance of stability to areas such as France and Germany. However, even before the Carolingians established the HRE in 962 you had centralization (or some semblance of it) within these regions by the mid 8th century. And while I agree, much of this time period is up for debate, my original point remains. It is ignorant and historically inaccurate to use the term "Dark Age".
+T Kent Keep talking shit. The Europeans lost most technological progress that the Romans had. You quote the Carolingian Empire - they were a pale, pathetic shadow attempt to recapture the glory of Rome - in reality, they were closer to the Barbarian tribes which had eventually over the course of centuries, infiltrated and destroyed Rome. For all intents and purposes, it was a 'Dark Age', in which technological regression was the norm. You claim to have extensive historical background. I suggest that you keep studying, but try not to insert your own bias.
An interesting video - I like taking a look at events like these and just how far their effects go. It's especially interesting to note that the Crusades united Europe in some ways but divided it in others. I suspect, however, that if Catholicism and Orthodoxy had mended ties or even merged in some fashion, there would still have been wars throughout Europe. Having the same religion isn't _that_ much of a uniting force on its own... unless you can rally people around the idea of fighting someone of a different religion. But if Muslims hadn't tried to invade Christian territory, than Europeans probably would have torn each other apart instead.
The Dark Ages coincides with the rise of Islam. So can it not be said that Islamic conquest brought about the Dark Ages? The sack of Rome was just one incident after all.
-Aatif - This is true but the works wouldn't have needed saving if it weren't for Islam kicking the roman empire out of it's territories. And there wouldn't need to be a renaissance if Islam had not sent Europe into the Dark Ages.
NeutralGrounder the roman empire attacked the muslims by sending 100,000 troops to the arab peninsula. then in one of the greatest battles in Islamic history 10,000 muslims defeated the romans led by the greatest warrior and general in history(imo) Khalid ibn walid.
Another big difference would be Latin America which is overwhelmingly Christian if the crusaders never happened it's possibly that Spain would be Muslim and so the entire Latin America
Thaaaaaat's actually true. Actually, a "What if Latino America was colonized by a Muslim Spain" would be kind of interesting, though I am not sure if they would have given Columbus his ships? I am pretty sure someone would figure out the Earth is round (Mulsim nations did keep Egyptian, Greek and Roman knowledge, and some philosophers were already proposing that Earth isn't flat as early as Alexander's conquests) but I have no idea if the civilization that invaded Spain was on the know there
Muslim Spain wouldn't discover the New World, as they would never be inclined too, the only reason Columbus even thought they could get to India going around the Earth was because the Ottos were being dicks and banned Europe from the Indian Spice Trade, Portugal had already found an easy way to India by circling around Africa, but that was not the best solution for Spain who also had too much gold sitting around which led to the Patronizing of Columbus's travel to the Americas
Not really. By then the Moors were weak from tons of infighting and Spain was reclaiming lands. The Muslims in Iberia and the Muslims in Anatolia were two different political entities or caliphs so the success of one didn't mean the success of all. In fact they'd often compete with one another similar to the way Christian Europe did.
I think that without the reunification of Europe due to the Crusades not happening, the Turks could have easily poured into the rest of Europe. An unorganized central Europe could mean that the Turks could have won the battle at Vienna. The culture of the entire central European region could be different. Who knows?
Jared Subia But the Byzantines would have been much more powerful as well without the 4th Crusade. They were almost always the shield of Europe, perhaps they could have endured?
But Europe was not centralised at all at this time. The only thing that stopped the turkish expansion was the siege of Wien and the intervention of Poland, so the crusades didn't play a big role. If any, they fragilised the Byzantine Empire, making it easier for the ottomans to get into Europe
Valakhan well, if the Byzantine had fallen in the alternate timeline, then it could've happened that they also had overrun middle europe. But to me it doesn't look very likely that Byzantine would've had fallen then. A strong Byzantine would've let their enemies rethink their strategy, maybe going northern east, into the direction of russia or trying to get stronger first through the conquering of another land, most likely an islamic one. Due to that, they would meet much more waryness which they Need to deal with and that could be the tipping Point, why they never gotten to the Point to conquer Byzantine. Well, on the other Hand, a big coalition of the islamic states could had conquered them, going into the Balkan, through middle europe and from there through the whole of europe, but to be able to do something like that, they would've needed to sort the differences between schiits and sunnits first, and since this hasn't been resolved in our timeline, it is most unlikely that would've happened. But maybe I had overlooked something.
Jared Subia Not really, they were already invading long before and the divided countries and counties readily repelled them. The crusades only meant they could invade instead of defending. In fact my own country was invaded by turks at one point, they called it "the turk robbery" (Tyrkjaránið) where they came and took our women, mostly, and burned farms. We sank a bunch of their ships, though. (Iceland)
reunification of Europe ? Crusades were launched in France very few other Europeans took part in the crusades and it's also why the Frankish Kingdoms founded there reffered to as "Outremer"
I doubt anyone on youtube gives a fuck about you're worldview or frankly wether you live or die....literally mate, no one knows or cares about you on youtube. You must have some self-importance delusions
Sam Stevens religion is in all wars, it may be big, or it may be small, but it's either the cause or a factor of all wars. Why do you think Isis exists? Because of religion.
As a point of order, the Eastern Orthodox did not break off from or "rebel" against the Roman Catholic Pope. The West and the East were, at the time, two equal halves of the Church that were in direct cooperation with each-other. The Schism occurred when they ceased to communicate and began to operate independently because of a variety of doctrinal differences and political power plays by both sides. To elaborate: Originally, there were five Patriarchs in the Catholic Church, each of which controlled a particular area within the Roman Empire. They worked together very closely with each-other and the Emperor to manage the Church and the Empire. Originally the Patriarch of Rome was the official head, but when the capitol moved to Constantinople, the Greek Patriarchy became sort-of primary. Also, after Muslim expansion took over Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, the Pentarchy was reduced to just the two Patriarchs. Due to the east-west split of the Empire, and the fact that the Patriarchs had doctrinal sovereignty within their own Sees, the division between Greek and Latin Catholicism became increasingly large. The beginning of the end was when the two halves of the Church territorialized their respective Sees by forcing churches within their physical demesne to conform to their own practices (they were previously quite intermixed, with some Greek churches in Italy and some Latin churches in Thrace). This set off a chain of events that led to the Greek Catholic Church and the Latin Catholic Church formally splitting from one another because both Patriarchs considered themselves to be the true singular leader of the entirety of Christendom. The Orthodox Patriarch was the Patriarch of the Roman Empire and, from his perspective, was the rightful ruler of all Catholics, while the Latin Pope was the Patriarch of the city of Rome, the traditional capitol of the Roman Empire and, from his perspective, was also the rightful ruler of all Catholics. A few more events widened the gap, such as when the Pope crowned a Holy Roman Emperor, despite the Eastern Roman Empire still existing. Also, when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, the various autocephalous patriarchs became more distant from the West. Basically, the Schism wasn't so much of an event, as it is a state of affairs. It could always theoretically be repaired, but it would require the Roman Pope to declare himself to not being the sole and final authority on all matters of faith and moral within the Church. He would have to share that responsibility with the other Patriarchs. Since there is no more Roman Empire at all, nor any true successor state thereof, it would theoretically be easier to repair the Schism nowadays, imo.
I'd just like to say this: While Eastern and Western Christiandom split only in 1054, they'd had realistically split long before that: The Pope was sovereign, as opposed to the rest of the Pentarchy that marks Orthodoxy, and as such the Pope viewed himself above the Pentarchy, while the Pentarchs viewed themselves and the Pope as equal. There were also many major differences in the actual religion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, one that pops into my mind is the view of Icons. In Catholicism, Icons are viewed as interesting, but not holy, while in Orthodoxy the Icons are much more holy. What I'm trying to say is that Western and Eastern Christianity were doomed to split If anyone want to add on or correct me, please comment
James A Clouder Actually the Pentarchy views the Pope as first among equals. So not truly equal but with equal power which is seen as a contradiction for Catholics thus is why more power for the Pope is justified. Also they view icons nearly the same however one of the factors for the split was that Eastern Orthodoxy had a period of iconoclasm in which they were destroying art and other icons. All of those differences are small compared to the thing that is crucial that was the true reason for the spit. In Eastern Orthodoxy Emperor Constantine is considered equal to the Apostles. Apostolic succession is a Catholic and Orthodox idea in which Archbishops/Patriarchs gain authority from the Apostles. Since Constantine is considered equal to an Apostle, this means the consecutive Emperors are equal to Patriarchs. Very complicated. Anyway in Eastern Orthodoxy traditionally its the Emperor who appoints the Ecumenical Patriarch (Bishop of Constantinople) (current first among equals of Eastern Orthodox). Now consider when the Pope crowned Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. This makes the Emperor lower than Archbishops/Patriarchs since the Emperor swears fealty to the Pope and the Church is the one that gives the Emperor the right to rule. The crowning of the Emperor of the HRE made the Byzantine Emperor and Ecumenical Patriarch angry since they considered the Byzantine Emperor as the only legitimate one. This was the true reason of the split.
Darken De la Espada Thank you for explaining it better then I did. I knew that in the East they had the idea of Emperor over Pope, and in the West they had the idea of Pope over Emperor (or at least attempted to). I even explained this in my video on the beginning of the HRE!
James A Clouder You may enjoy Real Crusades History on youtube. They have scholarly sources and occasionally have visiting Ph.d's There are a lot of videos there, enough to satisfy anyone's appetite.
One thing I would add is one of the theological differences, the addition of the Filioque to the nicene creed within the Latin rite. While it does seem like a small touch it did stir quite the uproar back then due to the fact that the orthodox viewed such change to the creed as heresy while the Catholics reasoned that the addition was not heretical and helped fight against the heresies growing in the West. If I remember correctly any change in doctrine had to be first discussed in a church council which is something the Catholic Church did not do when adding the Filioque which made the Orthodox Church upset that they were not advised first.
If the crusades never happened, WW2 would never happen. Let me explain. One of the last crusades were done to the last pagans of Europe; the Prussians (and no not the Prussians we know and love that united Germany). After most of the Native Pagans were wiped out, the German Knights decided to settle there. I don't want this to be too long, but eventually, Prussia forms which would centuries later unite the German states of central Europe under Otto von Bismark, but of course, without the crusades, this would never happen. The only way a united Germany would happen would be if Austria did it, which was pretty unlikely. But anyway, Austria-Hungary only declared war on Serbia to start WW1 because Germany had confirmed they had Austria's back. Therefore, WW1 would most likely never occur, and would not be able to fuel the flames for the infamous WW2.
I'm willing to believe that ww1 would have still been declared because of imperialism and nationalism also racism stirring up between neighboring countries the only difference is who fights in the wars
If my school history books used drawn cartoon representations of historical figures while explaining these things, I guarantee people would actually pay attention.
I have always found history boring, but you make it interesting, even when you explain the existing timeline. Also you should do a video about what if the Australian gold rush never happened. (Mainly because it's one of the few things I remember from primary school history lol)
Can I just say that I'm reading comments from Westerns saying the Crusades were a counterattack. In the Middle East it's taught that it is an invasion. Not saying which is right or whatever, just thought it was an interesting way of seeing different perspectives.
It's like that everywhere. In the US the American Revolution is just that, a revolution, but in the UK it's still called a rebellion. Much like the many in the southern states of the US saying the Civil War was a "revolution" of sorts while most other Americans see it as a rebellion. All depends on the victor because that's who writes history unfortunately.
Sean Keating Yeah. Even where I'm from in the Middle East, when Muslims took Cordoba we call it "The Opening of Cordoba" The Spanish call it an invasion. I just love seeing huge contrasts of perspectives, it interests me so much.
of course they would say its an invasion. If they admit they took the land and the christians fought to take back the land they would no longer be the victims.
It's definitely somewhere in the middle. They were not glorious defenders of liberty. And they were not solely imperialist invaders. Crusaders both prevented European land from being invaded and invaded non European land
the crusades are just a chapter of the criminal Europe history , before that was the roman empire , later European colonialism and it's crimes all over the world against peaceful peoples , later followed imperialism , now the criminal USA , Muslims did not begin any wars , they just liberated their own Arab lands from the roman occupation , until now Muslims are suffering from crusades of the west in Iraq Afghanistan ,Palestine , Libya and other Muslim countries , Christian crusade wars are going on .
so your saying the roman empire was a bad thing i mean its not like the barbarians were killing each other before and the romans barely got into arabia because its a desert
so you say that romans invaded the near east to prevent it's population from killing each other ??!! they invaded other peoples to enslave them , the crusaders did the same thing , british , french , germans , dutch , spaish , russians and USA did and do the same thing in the world , europeans are agressive peoples inflamed world wars and used terrors everywhere .
Levi Ackerman Arab land is not only Arabia or Arabic peninsula So you say that romans invaded the near east to prevent its population from killing each other??!! they invaded other peoples to enslave them , the crusaders did the same thing , British , French , Germans , Dutch , Spanish , Russians and USA did and do the same thing in the world , Europeans are aggressive peoples inflamed world wars and used terrors everywhere (Israel is a European project) .
08:37 ... You're placing defenders behind Spain, saying that Europeans could defend... but the whole of Northern Africa was European before Islam destroyed it.
+siratthebox Babylonians were never european. Babylonia is in Mesopotamia which was always in Asia, the only time it was european was during the hellenic era and maybe during Roman empire.
The crusades were undoubtedly righteous in cause, but some of them did not go as planned. I can't convict the church fornthe incidents, those who commited the horrors were banished and excommunicated from the church yet still people blame the church as a whole rather than a select few zealous commanders. No one seems to mind the zealous commanders for the muslims that ordered more horrors. From what I understand, the muslims wanted the holy land but went about it in the form of genocide. Just like some of the crusaders. Really you can't convict either side too much. I guess the muslims did start it, but that doesn't entirely justify the actions of the crusaders where they killed innocent jews and even christians. One thing for sure is the crusades were bloody, but not entirely a mistake.
the crusades are just a chapter of the criminal Europe history , before that was the roman empire , later European colonialism and it's crimes all over the world against peaceful peoples , later followed imperialism , now the criminal USA , Muslims did not begin any wars , they just liberated their own Arab lands from the roman occupation , until now Muslims are suffering from crusades of the west in Iraq Afghanistan ,Palestine , Libya and other Muslim countries , Christian crusade wars are going on , you are a crusader too .
1916 win There's a lot wrong with your comment. I'll just say that I can not be a crusader because I am only saying it was righteous in that it was revenge. Nor could I be a crusader because I am neither a Christian or Muslim.
+Isiah Rodriguez I don't think "1916 win" knows their history or even watched the video above. At no point in time did the Arabs own Italy or France in the pre-Roman times. The Crusades are an unfortunate response to a long history of violence on the part of a spreading faith. I suggest watching Stefan Molyneux's video "The Truth of the Crusades". Very detailed.
gtas321 islamic conquests were a response to the roman invasion occupation and humiliation , islamic conquests were the liberation from the roman monster that came from the west before islam and before christianity , islamic conquests were a natural response to the persian occupation also .this is one reason of many reasons of the great respect among muslims to prophet mohammed until nowadays and the reason of the hate in the west to him . why do you believe that ibraham was a jew while he was not , he is an arab from iraq moved to palestine and later to mecca , jesus and his mother mary were our natives from palestine ??!!
When I think about the crusades, I think about the mass murder of innocent muslims and christians. Yes, the Crusaders killed Christians because they couldn't tell which one is who and who.
Without Crusades Europe would've given less value to religion, for they wouldn't send their troops to reclaim the "Holy Lands". This means scientists like Gallilei would've been able to experiment and gain knowledge without the church bashing their faces in. It might have had a positive outcome for Europe. But to speculate about topics like these is mere impossible, for a minor event we have no knowledge of could change the course of history.
Well, if you think about it, it is possible to have the opposite affect causing people to value Christianity more because it is a religion of peace and not war. There would probably be more Christians if the church thought of something. But, that is unlikely considering people were straying from the church. But, then again, the violence of the crusade did make many view Christians as violent and people would believe God is evil for allowing such massacre to happen in the first place. Without the violence, Christianity would either be very small in today's age or be even more praised for its view of non violence and equality. Shit, science would probably be used in Christian belief, explaining how God created things around us on a scientific level, making more Christian scientists prevalent. Galaleo would be able to do scientific study for the church. It could really go both ways...
God bless Queen Isabella and other great leaders from Iberian Peninsula such as Afonso I , Sancho I ,etc. if it wasn't for them my country(Portugal) would still be Muslim.
Nein! The Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople excomunicated each other, so it was a classical break up like two people sick of each other and said FUCK YOU at the same time. Also it was the Pope's fault because of his filthy interests, wanting to gain support in the Balkans, with all costs! So basically, the Pope was a bitch!
It was the Pope's emissaries led by Humbert that created the breach. Both sides understood the weakness the argument between the factions caused and the opportunity it gave Christianity's enemies so they wanted to find common ground. Sadly they didn't. Humbert and his party grew weary of the debate and acted on their own. Pope Leo IX did not provide or sign any papal bull and even after the posting of it could not have done so as he had died even b4 Humbert's actions. The arrogance of both sides and the failure to act as Christians should; doomed Byzantium in the long run (sundering it from it's natural allies in Europe) and decisively weakened Christian attempts to reverse the onslaught of Islam for several centuries
+Crazy FBI : It is the other way around the Schismatics or Catholics as they were called later, broke the bonds and changed several main dogmatic elements in the religion. They are considered heretics.
Crusaders against Jewish as such they were against Christianity also does exist!! Crusaders against Genghis Khan Empire also exist!! Crusaders against Rebellion Atheist People and Witchers also exist!! Crusaders against the opposite Christianity Belief also exist!! Crusaders against Templars also exist!!
Cody, make a scenario on "What if the 4th Crusade never happened" im interested to know how different the world would have been if the stupid blood thirsty knights woudlnt have attacked Constantinople in 1204
Well, that would mean that a certain man named Alexios was either ignored or he was able to repay the crusaders and Venetians( thus there not being any angry crusaders sacking constantinople). Apparently, the Doge of Venice also really hated Byzantium as well. So in conclusion, the problem lies in the Byzantium higher-ups and the terrible relationship they had with Venice. Maybe we should ask what if the Massacre of the Latins never happened first. There is obviously more to these problems though.
Elijah Pacheco Byzantium and Venice were trading rivals. Venice had colonies in Crimea and had to pay an extravagant fee to pass through the Dardanelles.
Saguntum-Iberian-Greek Konstantinopoli byzantium wouldt split to nicaea,trebiozond,and epir,bulgaria and latins wouldt take actions on raska,wich weakend byzantium drammaticly,balkan countries of bulgaria,raska and zeta would be more dependent of constantinopole,making strong enemies of ottomans
The muslims seriously wouldnt have invaded europe and really never expanded after the battle of toirs and the destruction of the ummayad caliphate in the 9th century leaving the less ambitious Abbasid caliphate which had 0 interest in the west so saying that the crusades saved europe from muslims is wrong. saving europe from itself is a more accurate term for the crusades.
No. The Orthodox Church was founded by The Council of Necea in 365AD. The Roman Catholic Church split from The Othodox Church in 1065AD when the Arch Bishop of Rome decided he wanted to unite the all the Orthodox Churches in Rome as one unified Church under his rule. HE was the first Pope. You have it backwards.
AD16 oh the profit fight. Rants actually more retarded. All those religions believe in each profit so why can't they all be the profits of each religion. It's fucking retarded. Also, believe-belie-lie.
If Alexios I Komnenos had gotten the mercenaries he'd asked for, the entire middle east might have been liberated instead of being conquered and subjected to the petty whims of a multitude of ambitious franks. Given how successful his two successors were even with the Crusades, if they'd been in a stronger position they could have accomplished all manner of great things. The Renaissance would not have been a sudden and revolutionary period of change, rather it would have begun sooner and been more gradual as the east stabilized under the Empire and the west maintained more cordial relations. The blight that was Venice would still have been problematic, but the Empire would have been in a much better position to resist and eventually subdue them (they were after all a rebellious imperial city). Without the strains put on their relationship by the excesses of the Crusaders and the treachery of people like Bohemond and the Venetians, the Latins may well have been able to rejoin the rest of the church, coming to an amicable agreement by way of an eighth general council. TLDR - Whoever rewrote the letter that Alexios sent to the pope is responsible for all manner of horrors and may well have been the one ultimately responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of the Ottomans, and ultimately all the disasters and horrors that afflicted the entire Eurasian continent thereafter.
Yep. Though one could question the whole letter rewritting thing, the crusades did seem convenient for the Pope at the time, considering the religious-political state of Europe. Not wanting to get all tin foil hat crazy here, but it doesn't seem far fetched that the Pope ordered rewritting that letter, after all reclaiming the territories to Constantinople and freeing them from muslim rule isn't that different right? That or whoever rewrote the letter thought that exact same thing
Thank you for making another excellent video AlternateHistoryHub but I do have one complaint that at 4:54 shows Muslims as overly barbaric as apposed to the Christians. I just wanted to point that out. P.S I may be biased due to me being a Muslim from the middle east and keep up the good work Cody :)
eyads99 How is he supposed to make guys that are in full plate armour look barbaric. Also, he should be able to draw them however he wishes, which he drew them in a fierce manner. Quite appropriate, honestly. Besides, he didn't make the guys at 6:48 look so great either. Lol
If the crusades didn't happen, you would make an alternate history of what if it did happen and then in that alternate history you would make a video of what if it didn't happen
I'm no history expert, but I do have an idea of my own. For one, science emerged as an unforeseen consequence of the crusades. It made Europeans question the bible, see more value in knowledge, and also gave them quite a bit of wealth. Science as we know it probably wouldn't exist. And by science, I mean the culture. Technological progress would likely still happen (though it may have been slowed down), but there would be no scientism. You certainly wouldn't see a creationism debate, at least in Europe. Its possible that science (or at least a form of it) may have arisen in the middle east instead, if at all. Another consequence may have been that Europe would never have colonized the Americas. They would've had less resources to do so. And besides, technological progress likely would've been stymied due to internal conflicts and wide-spread poverty. Essentially Europe would've been more like the middle east today. They may even have been muslim, but even if they stayed christian they still would've ended up as backwards religious zealots plagued by terrorism, just like the middle east is today. As for the Americas, things would look quite different if European powers never invaded. They probably would've have stayed independant to the modern day (I believe you discussed this possibility in another video), but I think it would mean that they would've been invaded by a different foreign power. Likely from the far east or maybe the middle east. The Americas would be unrecognizable to us if this happened. One thing that would be really interesting is if China took over the Americas. This would be interesting for one reason: rice. In ancient China, there were two civilizations that emerged in the region. One in the north, and one in the south. Only the southern kingdom had an appropriate climate for growing rice. The Chinese however noticed something though, that eating rice had huge health benefits. And it really does btw. This actually prompted the northern kingdom to conquer the southern kingdom, purely so they could have access to their rice fields! Of course, the Americas aren't as good for growing rice, so most of the people here would likely end up relying more on grain, but they would still see a value to rice. And I think that rice could be grown in the tropical climates of south and central America. Whoever had that land could forge a wealthy empire on rice, because every power on the continent would want it just so they could have fitter soldiers! But the land would also be highly contested no doubt, meaning that whatever nation developed in the amazon would be highly militant, authoritarian, and corrupt. Also, this would be a major environmental disaster. Its likely that the amazon rain forest would end up being cleared much faster just to make way for rice paddies, purely because of the economic advantage they gave. To me, the impact of the crusades on our world was dramatic. Not that I'm saying they were a good thing, but they brought so much power and knowledge to Europe that our world would be unrecognizable if they didn't occur. English certainly wouldn't be as dominate as it is now. It would probably have stayed a minority language, restricted mostly to Europe. Especially considering that this means that the 'age of empires' would never have happened, thus there would've been no British empire spreading English all across the planet. In a way, the crusades affected our entire world. If they never happened, the world as it is now wouldn't even be recognizable to us.
There would have been no crusader meme
here here pall
roach191 CEASE!!
Is that sexual harassment?
Jacek 'Kalambur' Gmoch probably
roach191 oh god that scares me.
Doy. Sorry for the error. Orthodox existed way before 1054, I just meant decades since the split. If they did reunify they'd go back to how it was before the Schism, not to the Catholic Church.
I didn't mean to make that big of a flub on that.
yea you better ask for excuses ! I'm offended now ! as an octopus I won't accept such things !
I was just about to say something about that, thanks for clearing it up
AlternateHistoryHub How about Poland that invited crusadors into prussia? The Crusadors betrayed Poland and formed a religious state of Marian Order that after many wars became Prussia-state that unified Germany.
AlternateHistoryHub the Crusaders sounded like the Nazis( I am Catholic but I hated all of this killings, the Germans hates the holocaust , for us Catholics its the same thing )
AlternateHistoryHub The Turks will hold the Holy Land 'til World War 1 right ?
I love these longer indepth videos this guy puts the history channel to shame.
Steven Wills let's face it there is no history left on that channel
The "History" Channel
We have history channels?
Steven Wills Sadly, the best they got is Vikings (And that's a good series mind you) and many of the telling of WW2.
BluVampireHunter they only put ww2 videos on when its near Remembrance day
There won't be an Assassin's Creed game
So I wanted to talk more about the Byzantines.
After the Fourth Crusade, Constantinople was pretty much wiped out, and never recovered. Without this Crusade, Constantinople could have stood a greater chance against the invading Turks, perhaps lasting past our timeline in 1453.
The stress of the Crusades, weakened the Byzantines in the long run and isolated them from their Western counterparts. This made them easier targets (with some Crusaders even allying with the Turks against the East). Without the wars, the Byzantines could have remained some sort of influencer in the society of the 16th centuries. Instead of being overtaken by the Ottomans.
Maybe even a mini state in Greece as a remnant of the empire? Perhaps. That is just one scenario though.
I asked last episode, but What if the Soviets built the nuclear bomb before America? How would this affect WWII, the Cold War, and the years after?
AlternateHistoryHub My countery might have bee more developed had the Ottomans not defeated the Byzantine. 500 years of Ottoman rule really set us back compared to the rest of Europe.
AlternateHistoryHub What is Qing China ousted the Western powers?
What aboot us vikings? Would christianity spread to Scandinavia? Were there already plans to convert the north or would those arise much later?
What if the permian extinction never happened
When I think of the word crusade, I think of an archeologist fighting a nazi on an army tank.
Now THAT'S what the crusades should have been.
***** Indiana Jones,
***** I knew. I don't think you got my joke. Whatevs. Kinda need to chill.
Werezilla you have choosen wisley
Werezilla that's what thought
There would be no Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade
It would be Muhammed Jones: The last Jihad
YEP LOLOLOL
Video: "When I say crusades, what do you picture?"
Me: "DEUS VULT"
Memes
Maymays
What if napoleon did not lose at Waterloo?
carn109 The Second French Empire would survive another few months? It was totally fucked in any scenario dude.
Hey that was my idea....
You're heavily underestimating France
carn109 British blockade of France and Russian invasion. Who knows who would win the resulting Russian - French war. But since most of Europe was sick of French rule, it would only be a matter of time before a new coalition defeated Napoleon.
carn109 Napoleon would of lossed not long after that.
What if Bing was bigger than Google?
Hell, pure hell *shudders
Alan Cotter Oh wait, you're serious. LET ME LAUGH EVEN HARDER! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Alan Cotter That scenario would be like the Texas one, there is no possible way it could happen...
Alan Cotter that the most ASB thing I've ever heard
what if internet explorer actually worked?
What if the US militarily intervened during the Chinese Civil War? Like full scale military intervention
***** America had a long standing policy of Non-Interventionism from it's starting days up to joining the Second World war, to the point that the Republicans in the last months of President Wilson's term voted against joining the United Nation because it would mean that America would join wars to defend nations, (can we get those Republicans Back instead of the Warmongering scoundrels currently plague the world?)
+Voron Agrrav Vietnam
***** oh
Kkostas Anagno the mess in Vietnam is one of those things that could've been avoided if America held to it's Non-Interventionism, but no, it had to become the Warmongering state it currently is :(
***** You mean instead of go back to the Monroe-Doctrine, the united states would become an active part in the world. Intresting. That would change so much:
1. A much more stable and stronger League of Nations
2. Maybe a nicer treatment of the losers of WWI
3. With those pionts mentioned. Nations like Germany or Italy could be much more stable and maybe even democratic.
I personally think that would be a great scenario.
5:29 to skip right to the scenario. The knight is broken. *Deus Vult*
(For common courtesy to the next person to use the skip button, drop a like)
Simon Peter
Used the skip, got an ad and lost the comment. Dedicated 30 secs to finding it again.
Thank you brother, Deus Vult
And the dark ages were far from dark
***** For Europe yeah. Their were few centralized states and progress had driven to a halt. Massive numbers of freelance knights killed thousands, and most other people were impoverished.
That's why I said for Europe. Not the World.
***** The frustration when someone calls the middle ages and renaissance eras "dark ages", instead of the period from the fall of the roman empire, to fuel their aggression and contempt for religion.
It was dark. It literally though. Because of Christianity and Islam
+Sir George Severn Christianity and Islam were the centers of the arts during the Middle Ages, just not in West Europe.
Constantinople was devoutly Christian and retained Roman civilization. Baghdad and Mecca were centers of teaching for their day, as well as centers of Islam
"The more cultural Arabs and Byzantines".
What? Am I missing something or is he saying that Europe had less culture than the eastern world? If anything Europe had a way broader spectrum of different and rich cultures.
I'm aware of that, but not all of Europe was Catholic. We still had the Vikings up north, the Sami above them, etc. It's not like Europe was this unified lump of Christianity who lacked all form of culture.
Twiggyay And I seem to recall something about a people called Finns...
+Twiggyay he technically means more technologically advanced. culture doesn't matter in this situation
Twiggyay Compared to the Byzantines and Arabs, the Vikings were not as advanced.
I'm pretty sure he meant it as in "The Arabs and Byzantines who were more cultured and intellectual among their peers and constituents".
If the crusades never happened then I would be a cactus.
Welp, that's just a load of logic
Alan Cotter
You would be made into delicious tequila.
Alan Cotter I agree, I would be a tree. But I would be a very badass tree.
+Alan Cotter I would have been a unicorn.
If the Crusades never happened, many democratic nations wouldn't exist. Richard "The Lionheart" would stay at England, and he is not overthrown by his younger brother, which means no Magna Carta. Also, US would be practicing Islam, due to the Iberian Peninsula being controlled by the Muslims. :)
the muslims woudlnt know how to take care of natives and u tell me USA would be muslims. in yo drams bro
how do you know that muslim wouldnt know how to take care natives?
No crusades doesnt mean no reconquista
LUNAR BLOODDROP Nope. The Sunnis and Shia would've probably divided America into a jillion different countries always fighting each other.
@@Nobody-qg1kc like the west did to the middle east?
I was diagnosed with cancer today. Shouldn't have looked at the youtube comments. Thanks guys!
Stop whining. Think critically. Debate. And if you can't stand, that people have different opinions and say their mind, than, please, go to a country where you don't have to "endure" that. Like North Korea, communist China or Saudi Arabia.
The weak will be brushed to the side like ash, leaving two lines to remain. The strong understand that sides must be taken, and the weak are removed as unnecessary.
LunarEntity wtf
Bobby Alam
Not all people are intellectual. Not all people really mean, what they are writing. And some people are just misguided, dumb, lunatic, radical or simply a**holes.
Being in the comment section is like being in an official room filled with people who are wearing masks and talk to each other - or just with themselves. You can just leave the room, or you try to listen and debate with others. Maybe you can change their view on things. Maybe you learn something new, learn and research new fields of view and facts and change your own opinion on things.
And the internet is not "cancer". The internet is a great invention, especially for people, who live in nations like "communist" China, where they cannot say, what they are thinking at all.
And I get, what you want to say. CHina is not really communist (since communism cannot work in reality). "Communist" China is a socialist, one-party dictatorship.
Capitalism on steroids actually. Explains why my Iphone was made by little hands.
We would never have had the Assassin's Creed games.
out of all the brutal murders and genocide of religions, this is what you being to the table
Well for all the destruction the Crusades caused it was a minor thing compared to what the Spanish did to the Americas.
NHUUUUUHHHHHHH
Hashashin would still exist without the crusades as most of their enemies were other Muslims.
The Templars *might* still exist but their name wouldn't be "templars" as that namesake was taken from "temple" in Jerusalem after the success of the 1st crusade.
Well they wouldn't exist now in any case since it was the Mongols who actually destroyed the Assassins. But we definitely wouldn't have had the games.
What if Bee Movie was never made?
Many hours of time making memes would be saved
world would be a better place, end of alternate timeline
Nobody Important we would all have more brain cells
The world would fall under a communist regime..
everything would be amazing and world peace would be achieved by now.
cuz logics.
I just think the iconic crusader armor looks really cool and the fact that they are jesus knights
Hmm
the racist Knight of Jesus who killed and raped civilians? Even fellow Christians? Ohh please, those fanatic Deus Vult were no more than today's 'Islamic' terrorists, like ISIS or Al Qaeda, doing the so-called 'Jihad', but in fact they both did it for their own personal benefit.. the difference is that these twisted knights had the Pope (the greedy old fuck who had more power than any king) on their back, and the 'Islamic' terrorist has only the local warlords and the CIA on their back.
@Chaz Hagen, as much as the wars were in reclamation and defense, the crusaders weren't good or right either. They only had the moral high-ground insofar as they had some reasonable justification for the wars. Other than that, they were still just members of failed wars that resulted in the death and terrorizing of many innocent civilians and opposing soldiers.
@@caezero2072, you seem mostly correct, but the comment is quite difficult to read with many technical errors. If you would like to encourage calm, scholarly discussion rather than the name calling from Chas Hagen, then I would recommend some level of revision.
@@caezero2072 Race was not a thing back then.
What if the Mongolians never conquered China (The Song Dynasty)?
Good one
Gamer 47 What if the Mongols never became an Empire? :)
Hornchief What if the Mongols conquered all of Europe?
Hornchief then they would have never conquered China :P
Gamer 47 What if the Mongols never Sacked Baghdad. It destroyed the Islamic Caliphate, and destroyed the biggest and most advanced city at the time. Islam was also the well of knowledge at the this time until the Mongols.
Such a great series. Well done.
Thanks!
So how are you not verified?
Dude: what if the crusades nev...
*dude gets beheaded by a crusader*
Crusader: CRUSADES WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN!!!! DEUS VULT DEUS VULT AVE MARIA BURN YOU INFIDELS AND BURN YOU SHALL
@Daniel Busuttil shut up yourself, this was 4 years ago man
Is it bad that whenever I hear "Antioch" I can't help but think of a Holy Hand Grenade?
Then where do you get our spicy "deus vult" memes?
Sunset we would have "what if memes about Muslims and Europeans fighting were a thing"
Islam would take over the world.
@@zubairibrahim1941 Islam sucks Jews are better
@ITS FACTZ tell your weak religion in the middle east to get better mate or get crushed by atheists 🇷🇺🇫🇷🇬🇧🇺🇸
you can cover your ass whit that........
DEUS VULT
***** you watched extra history ?
+eyads99 I do. Deus vult is a common term for crusades though
yeah it is
nope that means that you learn from your games
The Gibus King Dan-dan-dadan, dadan-dan, dan-dan-dadan, dadan-dan~♪
It just slowed down the islamification of europe by 1000 years lol
+Shadow77999 touchè
+Shadow77999 The Islamification of europe stopped at the Tours. Which happened 300 years before the crusades. But I guess your statement could be true.
+cobra888 and Sicilia was a Muslim Emirate from 840 to 1090... 4 years before the crusades. And all the Raids against Rome by Muslims until that date, doesnt see the conection this page?? and Dont Forget about Spain.-
I haven't forgotten about Spain. In fact the Tours happened after they occupied Spain. But ever since that there hasn't been any significant attempts to occupy Europe. Not until the Ottomans, whom occupied some after the crusades.
+Shadow77999 mabye but they hurt the Eastern Roman Empire, who were the bulwark against Islamic invasion
If the crusades didn't happen we wouldn't have crusaders 1, 2, and 3.
Deus Vult.
psittacus sine litteris
Max Johnson why are you calling him an illiterate parrot?
Infidel
Chelsea est superbia Londinensis.
What if Constantinople never fell to the Ottomans/Turks?
What if France won the French and Indian War?
What if Rome conquered all of Parthia? Would Rome make direct contact with Han China?
I'll make the Rome winning over Parthia : with control over Parthia (or at least Persia), although the newly conquered provinces may be hard to keep, this is a much lesser problem than having the Parthian then Sassanid empires. This makes the east of the Empire even stronger. Contacts with China wouldn't be much of a problem since you can't really march an army between mainland China and Persia (deserts, afghan mountains...). In Persia, the greek culture would have been heavily promoted. Perhabs some provinces would have rebelled into small kingdoms but still nowhere near a pain in the ass as a persian empire.
The Empire may still be cut, perhabs with the separation placed more at the east than at our timeline. Byzantium was still a "5-stars premium location" and perhabs even more important since the area around Syria and Mesopotamia would be more peaceful than in our timeline (because the Romans and whatever persian empire wouldn't constantly be at war), making a more profitable trade with the East. Rome had contacts with China in our timeline (through Persia) btw. Perhabs making Constantinople the border city between east & west. This would also bring eastern technologies faster, like paper and gunpowder.
Without constant war in the sector, the muslims wouldn't have expended as much as in our timeline. Sure there would still be civil wars between emperors and usurpers but not as weakening. They would certainly not have taken Egypt and thus north Africa.
Should the West have also fallen to "barbarians", with still not the persian border to care about, Justinian (if he exists in this timeline) would have made greater conquests. Perhabs the East would have taken the core provinces of the West (Italy, Africa...) while only letting the border areas (Gaul, Britain...) to germanic tribes. Who were a lesser evil if they kept the Empire as a model
The border with India now ? Well, I believe Afghanistan is a good enough buffer zone, much easier to hold a frontier there than in Mesopotamia...
Connor Dunn You mean my latest EU4 game XD
Also one of my EU4 games XD
Well basically TW Rome game of mine lel
Ok to be serious
I can't really see how Constantinople can not be taken by the Turks, although the best I could see is the Byzantines being a Ottoman Vassal.
If Rome Conquered Parthia? Well I don't really see them contacting China since you know, desserts and mountains between them. But if that was the case then the Eastern Rome would've been much more prominent and strong. Heck I bet Adrianople wouldn't had happened if the East Rome had the riches of the East
They sorta had a contact through 2 roman explorers (and I mean 2 bodies) entered Han China and introduced Silk to the Europeans. They even met the emperor.
Connor Dunn What if someone travelled back in time and gave the Vikings automatic rifles?
Gísli Stefán Then the Vikings would rule the world.
playing total war as i listen to this - literally just took antioch and edessa lol
***** Thanks man, appreciate your support
+beyondthelol medieval total war was a great game. I hope they make their next game Medieval III
+beyondthelol Maybe that's why you took antioch and edessa.
+MR.Chickennuget 360 CA will probably fuck it up again.
I love this channel . it's humbling because it makes you realize one choice can change lives .
D E U S V U L T
BwazizenBoii
good
Amen
Ave Maria
We will take Jerusalem
DEUS VULT BROTHER!!!!
Now the real question: What if the Crusades had succeed?
HenrySims Odds are little would change. The Mongols were just around the corner, most of the states would have fallen to them. It may have also weakened the Mamlucks so much that they would not be able to hold off the mongols, and they would have marched into North Africa.
+Illier1 wow, someone who knows of the mamlukes! I'm not alone!
Illier1 Thanks! I do often forget about them ahah So no chances whatsoever? Even with support from outside?
HenrySims Mongols work quick, odds are the Kingdoms wouldn't be able to call for help in time, and the Pope never called for Crusades against them in real life also is pretty damn bad.
Illier1 They work quick,but they fall quicker.
8 year old kids would not comment "dEuS vUlT✝️✝️✝️"
DEUS VULT🗡🏰🕍🛐 ✝
8 year old kids don't even know what that is dude
@@lsd-rickb-1728 Nobody cares.
"When I say Crusades, what do you picture?"
Well a poorly informed flame war for one thing, but the comments section seems to be lacking that...
What I picture is a ridiculous a series of conflicts, wherein both sides are pitted against each other by way of manipulation and lies, orchestrated by either faction's leaders. But that's just my opinion on the matter.
RovertNoteek My community is pretty swell.
A series of conflicts that would change a portion of the world as we know it - contributing for a mass change in history and being moved by beliefs, not outright lies. If what you're talking about is the religion behind it, I'm sure that was intended as a way of tarnishing its concept. Atheists and irreligious people alike tend to distort reality and use historical events as a way of 'proving' that religion is not a 'good thing'. On my point of view, what sucks about it is that groups of believers of certain religions tend to act in an extremist manner - leaving no room for things such as logic and objective reasoning. One would argue that the same goes for every believer, but that kind of behavior assimilates that of a religious extremist; just as people with extreme views on religion, there are people who aim to destroy it at any cost - kind of like the opposite side goes. Most atheists I know are arrogant, selfish and calculative individuals that aren't any different from who they tend to target, as is shown in the comment this replies to.
^ This guy
Sam Damn... well firstly I'd like to apologize. I should've worded my original comment more precisely, since it could be interpreted as an assault on religion. Make no mistake, I have no problem with religion, I'm not even an atheist as you seem to think I am. I only believe, that religion *can* be a bad thing, and that the Crusades are examples of that potential. Faith can be a beautiful thing, and it has been so on many accounts throughout history and I'm certain it will continue to do so. Religion had little to do with my first comment, as I was mainly speaking on the politics in the war. I meant to talk about the corrupt men of the time, seeking to further their own goals of affluence or power or influence by twisting belief to their own ends.
I fear I've chosen my words poorly yet again, but I certainly hope I haven't.
+RovNot I see (at least in case of the first crusade) a conflict that was called for with good intention, but quickly went south due to poor planning and internal power struggles. combine that with some unforeseen events and the less then noble goals of the Nobles who ended up leading the campaign and you get a long conflict and a destabilized region.
Continue to love this channel :D
We would have been fucked,no Renaissance,no Baroque,no USA,no modern civilization
Eric Logan there would be a modern civerlistation in europe
golden yuri The animator U gotta be kidding,only europe priovide the world so many scientists
Eric Logan No at this time Arab world had far mor better technology than the Europians had.
Gijs Pinxteren No they stole from Greeks
Eric Logan Yes but why did the europeans destroy everything left of Rome and Greece.
They didnt use their superior technoligy
"When I say crusades what do you think of?"
Crusader Kings II....mostly for the mods like the Elder Scrolls one.
Truly its what the knights of medieval Europe would of wanted!
something is seriously wrong with Europe.
asia*
Fuck off, holy shit I hope the Internet doesn't represent humanity because we are fucked if this is how ignorant people are.
***** YOU!
Ibrahim Hasan You aren't helping muslims. you're just making everyone else think youre all violent.
+Skodaman2 the real problem is religion itself
To use the term "Dark Age" is utterly ignorant of historical fact. It is a historical and academic construction which is now outdated. It is largely considered an archaic term with regard to modern historical thought. The presentation of this video is flawed by relying so heavily on the notions implied by the term "Dark Age" I can easily forgive the gross oversimplifications as a necessity, but when you bandy about outdated terminology it makes me wonder how well you research your videos. I have a keen interest in Medieval history, mostly regarding the British Isles and the interactions with the Scandinavian world, but I having studied history and pursuing a Masters in the subject, I find that you are deliberately misrepresenting a term for the sake of doing so. That, or you are ignorant of the proper terminology.
Dude, calm down. If you actually listened to the video, you'd notice that he did not apply the term to the entirety of the Middle Ages, just the time immediately following the collapse of Rome.
Chris Stuart
I am perfectly aware of what was stated in the video. However, it is still historically and factually inaccurate. To present the "fall" of the Western Roman Empire as some sort of golden age is misleading. The Western Empire had been on the decline for centuries prior to the final collapse of its authority. Historians consider the Early Medieval period to be a time which still honoured Roman tradition and sought to renew its authority. We can see this clearly through the creation of the Holy Roman Empire in the mid 10th Century.
However, the Crusades occurred from the 11th century onward. By this time, Europe had largely moved on from the notion of reforming the Roman empire. There were advances in Philosophy, Education, Architecture and an assortment of other fields. This did not merely spring from the Crusades as it is suggested in this video. As such, to refer to the Medieval Period as the "Dark Ages" is archaic and ignorant.
+T Kent While it's true that in places like Britannia, after the Roman Empire pulled out and before the Roman Pope went on record to include Aenglaland into the Catholic union of nations (410-596 CE) Britain had a rich cultural history. There were other places that were more chaotic, though. The fiefs throughout France, Flanders, Germany, etc for example. I think one could use the term Dark Age to describe the aftermath of the fall of Western Rome. Chaos inevitably follows a power vacuum, and considering just how much of the Mediterranean Rome controlled, just imagine the size of power vacuum left AFTER Rome fell.
matt baber
Except there wasn't a power vacuum. The various Germanic tribes ended up establishing kingdoms and holdings of various sizes throughout much of the former Empire and attempted to carry on the traditions of the Western Empire. And, while arguably what would eventually become France and Germany were less centralized than other places, it was far from a Dark Age. The term Dark Age implies regression, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the peoples of Europe regressed during this time,
Furthermore, this video is referring to the 11th century as the Dark Ages. This is utterly absurd. Especially if you consider that the Carolingian Empire was established centuries before then and brought some semblance of stability to areas such as France and Germany. However, even before the Carolingians established the HRE in 962 you had centralization (or some semblance of it) within these regions by the mid 8th century.
And while I agree, much of this time period is up for debate, my original point remains. It is ignorant and historically inaccurate to use the term "Dark Age".
+T Kent Keep talking shit. The Europeans lost most technological progress that the Romans had. You quote the Carolingian Empire - they were a pale, pathetic shadow attempt to recapture the glory of Rome - in reality, they were closer to the Barbarian tribes which had eventually over the course of centuries, infiltrated and destroyed Rome. For all intents and purposes, it was a 'Dark Age', in which technological regression was the norm. You claim to have extensive historical background. I suggest that you keep studying, but try not to insert your own bias.
If it didn't happen, what would the Muslim apologists use to counter arguments people use against radical Islam?
***** I disagree.
WhiteInfidel That they don't represent us. They represent themselves.
Well, if you think that is the only thing the can counter your argument with, the you have not heard of AFRICA.
WhiteInfidel Haha, I was going to say that.
Mr. Game & Watch Why would you willingly be stupid?
An interesting video - I like taking a look at events like these and just how far their effects go. It's especially interesting to note that the Crusades united Europe in some ways but divided it in others. I suspect, however, that if Catholicism and Orthodoxy had mended ties or even merged in some fashion, there would still have been wars throughout Europe. Having the same religion isn't _that_ much of a uniting force on its own... unless you can rally people around the idea of fighting someone of a different religion.
But if Muslims hadn't tried to invade Christian territory, than Europeans probably would have torn each other apart instead.
Frederick Barbarossa would have lived longer
RIP never forget. Rivers are evil
i cri evry tiem
+Sean Citizen do you cry a river
But someone else would have to demonstrate this lesson : do not try to bathe in full armor.
Ave Maria Deus Vult
The Dark Ages coincides with the rise of Islam. So can it not be said that Islamic conquest brought about the Dark Ages? The sack of Rome was just one incident after all.
+NeutralGrounder actually Muslims saved the works of the Greeks and gave rise to the renaissance in Europe.
-Aatif - This is true but the works wouldn't have needed saving if it weren't for Islam kicking the roman empire out of it's territories. And there wouldn't need to be a renaissance if Islam had not sent Europe into the Dark Ages.
NeutralGrounder the roman empire attacked the muslims by sending 100,000 troops to the arab peninsula. then in one of the greatest battles in Islamic history 10,000 muslims defeated the romans led by the greatest warrior and general in history(imo) Khalid ibn walid.
-Aatif - Ok. But that doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's not relevant to the discussion.
NeutralGrounder the romans attacked the Muslims and were subsequently defeated lost their territories.
it has everything to do with the discussion
Another big difference would be Latin America which is overwhelmingly Christian if the crusaders never happened it's possibly that Spain would be Muslim and so the entire Latin America
Thaaaaaat's actually true. Actually, a "What if Latino America was colonized by a Muslim Spain" would be kind of interesting, though I am not sure if they would have given Columbus his ships? I am pretty sure someone would figure out the Earth is round (Mulsim nations did keep Egyptian, Greek and Roman knowledge, and some philosophers were already proposing that Earth isn't flat as early as Alexander's conquests) but I have no idea if the civilization that invaded Spain was on the know there
Spain wouldn't be muslim, the reason for muslim Spain's (Umayyad/Cordoban emirate/caliphate) decline was completely unrelated from the crusades.
@@cornsyrup9947 I mean the Reconquista was a Crusade so their loss of land was by technicality a Crusade
Muslim Spain wouldn't discover the New World, as they would never be inclined too, the only reason Columbus even thought they could get to India going around the Earth was because the Ottos were being dicks and banned Europe from the Indian Spice Trade, Portugal had already found an easy way to India by circling around Africa, but that was not the best solution for Spain who also had too much gold sitting around which led to the Patronizing of Columbus's travel to the Americas
Not really. By then the Moors were weak from tons of infighting and Spain was reclaiming lands. The Muslims in Iberia and the Muslims in Anatolia were two different political entities or caliphs so the success of one didn't mean the success of all. In fact they'd often compete with one another similar to the way Christian Europe did.
I think that without the reunification of Europe due to the Crusades not happening, the Turks could have easily poured into the rest of Europe. An unorganized central Europe could mean that the Turks could have won the battle at Vienna. The culture of the entire central European region could be different. Who knows?
Jared Subia But the Byzantines would have been much more powerful as well without the 4th Crusade. They were almost always the shield of Europe, perhaps they could have endured?
But Europe was not centralised at all at this time. The only thing that stopped the turkish expansion was the siege of Wien and the intervention of Poland, so the crusades didn't play a big role. If any, they fragilised the Byzantine Empire, making it easier for the ottomans to get into Europe
Valakhan well, if the Byzantine had fallen in the alternate timeline, then it could've happened that they also had overrun middle europe. But to me it doesn't look very likely that Byzantine would've had fallen then. A strong Byzantine would've let their enemies rethink their strategy, maybe going northern east, into the direction of russia or trying to get stronger first through the conquering of another land, most likely an islamic one. Due to that, they would meet much more waryness which they Need to deal with and that could be the tipping Point, why they never gotten to the Point to conquer Byzantine. Well, on the other Hand, a big coalition of the islamic states could had conquered them, going into the Balkan, through middle europe and from there through the whole of europe, but to be able to do something like that, they would've needed to sort the differences between schiits and sunnits first, and since this hasn't been resolved in our timeline, it is most unlikely that would've happened. But maybe I had overlooked something.
Jared Subia Not really, they were already invading long before and the divided countries and counties readily repelled them. The crusades only meant they could invade instead of defending.
In fact my own country was invaded by turks at one point, they called it "the turk robbery" (Tyrkjaránið) where they came and took our women, mostly, and burned farms. We sank a bunch of their ships, though. (Iceland)
reunification of Europe ? Crusades were launched in France very few other Europeans took part in the crusades and it's also why the Frankish Kingdoms founded there reffered to as "Outremer"
Look at all these people thinking a UA-cam comment is going to drastically change my worldview. How cute.
I know, but some people aren't as strong as us
You need to have a Worldview for us to change it.
I doubt anyone on youtube gives a fuck about you're worldview or frankly wether you live or die....literally mate, no one knows or cares about you on youtube. You must have some self-importance delusions
Your profile picture matches perfectly
smart.....
i don't think it'll change your view, but I just like to call out ppl's shit.
A video with religion in it (even just a little bit of it) will have a comment shitstorm
Gabe Newell that's because religion is evil and manipulative.
Woookay calm down everyone has an opinion
PrestigeGamer93, I don't see how religion is evil
Sam Stevens religion is in all wars, it may be big, or it may be small, but it's either the cause or a factor of all wars. Why do you think Isis exists? Because of religion.
radicalism actually
when i hear the word " crusades "
i simply think
*DEUSVULTDEUSVULTDEUSVULT*
As a point of order, the Eastern Orthodox did not break off from or "rebel" against the Roman Catholic Pope. The West and the East were, at the time, two equal halves of the Church that were in direct cooperation with each-other. The Schism occurred when they ceased to communicate and began to operate independently because of a variety of doctrinal differences and political power plays by both sides.
To elaborate:
Originally, there were five Patriarchs in the Catholic Church, each of which controlled a particular area within the Roman Empire. They worked together very closely with each-other and the Emperor to manage the Church and the Empire. Originally the Patriarch of Rome was the official head, but when the capitol moved to Constantinople, the Greek Patriarchy became sort-of primary. Also, after Muslim expansion took over Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, the Pentarchy was reduced to just the two Patriarchs. Due to the east-west split of the Empire, and the fact that the Patriarchs had doctrinal sovereignty within their own Sees, the division between Greek and Latin Catholicism became increasingly large. The beginning of the end was when the two halves of the Church territorialized their respective Sees by forcing churches within their physical demesne to conform to their own practices (they were previously quite intermixed, with some Greek churches in Italy and some Latin churches in Thrace). This set off a chain of events that led to the Greek Catholic Church and the Latin Catholic Church formally splitting from one another because both Patriarchs considered themselves to be the true singular leader of the entirety of Christendom. The Orthodox Patriarch was the Patriarch of the Roman Empire and, from his perspective, was the rightful ruler of all Catholics, while the Latin Pope was the Patriarch of the city of Rome, the traditional capitol of the Roman Empire and, from his perspective, was also the rightful ruler of all Catholics. A few more events widened the gap, such as when the Pope crowned a Holy Roman Emperor, despite the Eastern Roman Empire still existing. Also, when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, the various autocephalous patriarchs became more distant from the West. Basically, the Schism wasn't so much of an event, as it is a state of affairs. It could always theoretically be repaired, but it would require the Roman Pope to declare himself to not being the sole and final authority on all matters of faith and moral within the Church. He would have to share that responsibility with the other Patriarchs. Since there is no more Roman Empire at all, nor any true successor state thereof, it would theoretically be easier to repair the Schism nowadays, imo.
Long story short the 1st crusade was good the rest (especially the 4th) were bad. Constantinople would be European today if they didn't do that shit
Yep thanks pope greeddy man oh wait greed its sin gotcha Pope hah
@@ferbintegabriel4714 it was mainly becasue of the Venetians..and also because of the nobles guiding the Crusade
No the third crusade was good too
@Ishir Mehra muslim jihad was far far worse, dont be a twat.
@@toastiestoats tbh all holy wars end in slaughter because we all can't just agree to disagree.
If the crusades never happened, Europe would be enslaved, the ones that lived would be forced to eat curry. Bless St. George.
Was a joke, What is Indian morran?
I think he's trying to say moron
by who? If you destroy byzantium and eastern church you destroy islam or mongol and arab invaders?
I can't tell if your serious or not
This is one of my fave channels. These scenarios make you really think
I'd just like to say this: While Eastern and Western Christiandom split only in 1054, they'd had realistically split long before that: The Pope was sovereign, as opposed to the rest of the Pentarchy that marks Orthodoxy, and as such the Pope viewed himself above the Pentarchy, while the Pentarchs viewed themselves and the Pope as equal.
There were also many major differences in the actual religion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, one that pops into my mind is the view of Icons. In Catholicism, Icons are viewed as interesting, but not holy, while in Orthodoxy the Icons are much more holy.
What I'm trying to say is that Western and Eastern Christianity were doomed to split
If anyone want to add on or correct me, please comment
James A Clouder I would like to offend you, would that help?
James A Clouder Actually the Pentarchy views the Pope as first among equals. So not truly equal but with equal power which is seen as a contradiction for Catholics thus is why more power for the Pope is justified. Also they view icons nearly the same however one of the factors for the split was that Eastern Orthodoxy had a period of iconoclasm in which they were destroying art and other icons.
All of those differences are small compared to the thing that is crucial that was the true reason for the spit. In Eastern Orthodoxy Emperor Constantine is considered equal to the Apostles. Apostolic succession is a Catholic and Orthodox idea in which Archbishops/Patriarchs gain authority from the Apostles. Since Constantine is considered equal to an Apostle, this means the consecutive Emperors are equal to Patriarchs. Very complicated.
Anyway in Eastern Orthodoxy traditionally its the Emperor who appoints the Ecumenical Patriarch (Bishop of Constantinople) (current first among equals of Eastern Orthodox).
Now consider when the Pope crowned Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. This makes the Emperor lower than Archbishops/Patriarchs since the Emperor swears fealty to the Pope and the Church is the one that gives the Emperor the right to rule.
The crowning of the Emperor of the HRE made the Byzantine Emperor and Ecumenical Patriarch angry since they considered the Byzantine Emperor as the only legitimate one. This was the true reason of the split.
Darken De la Espada Thank you for explaining it better then I did. I knew that in the East they had the idea of Emperor over Pope, and in the West they had the idea of Pope over Emperor (or at least attempted to). I even explained this in my video on the beginning of the HRE!
James A Clouder You may enjoy Real Crusades History on youtube.
They have scholarly sources and occasionally have visiting Ph.d's There are a lot of videos there, enough to satisfy anyone's appetite.
One thing I would add is one of the theological differences, the addition of the Filioque to the nicene creed within the Latin rite. While it does seem like a small touch it did stir quite the uproar back then due to the fact that the orthodox viewed such change to the creed as heresy while the Catholics reasoned that the addition was not heretical and helped fight against the heresies growing in the West. If I remember correctly any change in doctrine had to be first discussed in a church council which is something the Catholic Church did not do when adding the Filioque which made the Orthodox Church upset that they were not advised first.
Cody, I really enjoy watching ALL of your alternate histories. I always learn something and consider new things. Keep up the good work!
I think if there were no crusades you would have one video less in your playlists.
If the crusades never happened, WW2 would never happen. Let me explain. One of the last crusades were done to the last pagans of Europe; the Prussians (and no not the Prussians we know and love that united Germany). After most of the Native Pagans were wiped out, the German Knights decided to settle there. I don't want this to be too long, but eventually, Prussia forms which would centuries later unite the German states of central Europe under Otto von Bismark, but of course, without the crusades, this would never happen. The only way a united Germany would happen would be if Austria did it, which was pretty unlikely. But anyway, Austria-Hungary only declared war on Serbia to start WW1 because Germany had confirmed they had Austria's back. Therefore, WW1 would most likely never occur, and would not be able to fuel the flames for the infamous WW2.
Hmmmm interesting. Are Prussians germans?
@@lsd-rickb-1728 Yes
@@RoccoArgubright I like Prussians then. Are Austrians germans as well
@@lsd-rickb-1728 yes, so are people from Luxembourg and most Swiss people
I'm willing to believe that ww1 would have still been declared because of imperialism and nationalism also racism stirring up between neighboring countries the only difference is who fights in the wars
DUES VULT!
Alex Goglin DEUS VULT! Let's go
Alex Goglin A FUCKING LEAF
He'll slip and fall just like Jerusalem
You embarrass the pope !
No don't besiege Constantinople!
WE WILL TAKE JERUSALEM.
*DEUS VULT INTENSIFIES*
THROW IT AT HIM, NOT ANTIOCH!
Looks like it's DEUS VULT time again.
IN THE NAME OF GOD!
If my school history books used drawn cartoon representations of historical figures while explaining these things, I guarantee people would actually pay attention.
I have always found history boring, but you make it interesting, even when you explain the existing timeline. Also you should do a video about what if the Australian gold rush never happened. (Mainly because it's one of the few things I remember from primary school history lol)
There wouldn't be the Assassin`s Creed series
Hehehe, there would be the Jihadist's Creed (jk, muslims couldn't even get past the industrial age without us lmao)
Can I just say that I'm reading comments from Westerns saying the Crusades were a counterattack. In the Middle East it's taught that it is an invasion.
Not saying which is right or whatever, just thought it was an interesting way of seeing different perspectives.
It's like that everywhere. In the US the American Revolution is just that, a revolution, but in the UK it's still called a rebellion. Much like the many in the southern states of the US saying the Civil War was a "revolution" of sorts while most other Americans see it as a rebellion. All depends on the victor because that's who writes history unfortunately.
Sean Keating Yeah. Even where I'm from in the Middle East, when Muslims took Cordoba we call it "The Opening of Cordoba"
The Spanish call it an invasion.
I just love seeing huge contrasts of perspectives, it interests me so much.
of course they would say its an invasion. If they admit they took the land and the christians fought to take back the land they would no longer be the victims.
It's definitely somewhere in the middle. They were not glorious defenders of liberty. And they were not solely imperialist invaders. Crusaders both prevented European land from being invaded and invaded non European land
@@antaries93 you should first admit that the christians took is from the jews, hypocrite
"When i Say crusades, what do you picture?"
The children's crusade ah yes XD
The crusades were never about religion. It was always about gaining political power..... the end
the crusades are just a chapter of the criminal Europe history , before that was the roman empire , later European colonialism and it's crimes all over the world against peaceful peoples , later followed imperialism , now the criminal USA , Muslims did not begin any wars , they just liberated their own Arab lands from the roman occupation , until now Muslims are suffering from crusades of the west in Iraq Afghanistan ,Palestine , Libya and other Muslim countries , Christian crusade wars are going on .
1916 win Great analogy and well said
so your saying the roman empire was a bad thing i mean its not like the barbarians were killing each other before
and the romans barely got into arabia because its a desert
so you say that romans invaded the near east to prevent it's population from killing each other ??!! they invaded other peoples to enslave them , the crusaders did the same thing , british , french , germans , dutch , spaish , russians and USA did and do the same thing in the world , europeans are agressive peoples inflamed world wars and used terrors everywhere .
Levi Ackerman Arab land is not only Arabia or Arabic peninsula
So you say that romans invaded the near east to prevent its population from killing each other??!! they invaded other peoples to enslave them , the crusaders did the same thing , British , French , Germans , Dutch , Spanish , Russians and USA did and do the same thing in the world , Europeans are aggressive peoples inflamed world wars and used terrors everywhere (Israel is a European project) .
08:37 ... You're placing defenders behind Spain, saying that Europeans could defend... but the whole of Northern Africa was European before Islam destroyed it.
+siratthebox No lol
Inica Yes lol.
No it wasn't ''european''
Yes it really was, the Byzantines and the Babylonians were European.
+siratthebox Babylonians were never european. Babylonia is in Mesopotamia which was always in Asia, the only time it was european was during the hellenic era and maybe during Roman empire.
The crusades were undoubtedly righteous in cause, but some of them did not go as planned. I can't convict the church fornthe incidents, those who commited the horrors were banished and excommunicated from the church yet still people blame the church as a whole rather than a select few zealous commanders. No one seems to mind the zealous commanders for the muslims that ordered more horrors. From what I understand, the muslims wanted the holy land but went about it in the form of genocide. Just like some of the crusaders. Really you can't convict either side too much. I guess the muslims did start it, but that doesn't entirely justify the actions of the crusaders where they killed innocent jews and even christians. One thing for sure is the crusades were bloody, but not entirely a mistake.
the crusades are just a chapter of the criminal Europe history , before that was the roman empire , later European colonialism and it's crimes all over the world against peaceful peoples , later followed imperialism , now the criminal USA , Muslims did not begin any wars , they just liberated their own Arab lands from the roman occupation , until now Muslims are suffering from crusades of the west in Iraq Afghanistan ,Palestine , Libya and other Muslim countries , Christian crusade wars are going on , you are a crusader too .
1916 win There's a lot wrong with your comment. I'll just say that I can not be a crusader because I am only saying it was righteous in that it was revenge. Nor could I be a crusader because I am neither a Christian or Muslim.
+Isiah Rodriguez I don't think "1916 win" knows their history or even watched the video above. At no point in time did the Arabs own Italy or France in the pre-Roman times.
The Crusades are an unfortunate response to a long history of violence on the part of a spreading faith. I suggest watching Stefan Molyneux's video "The Truth of the Crusades". Very detailed.
"muslims are suffering from the crusades." The crusades was pretty much a response to islamic conquest...
gtas321 islamic conquests were a response to the roman invasion occupation and humiliation , islamic conquests were the liberation from the roman monster that came from the west before islam and before christianity , islamic conquests were a natural response to the persian occupation also .this is one reason of many reasons of the great respect among muslims to prophet mohammed until nowadays and the reason of the hate in the west to him . why do you believe that ibraham was a jew while he was not , he is an arab from iraq moved to palestine and later to mecca , jesus and his mother mary were our natives from palestine ??!!
Constantinople > Istanbul
When I think about the crusades, I think about the mass murder of innocent muslims and christians. Yes, the Crusaders killed Christians because they couldn't tell which one is who and who.
Oh shut up.
Free speech, man. Can't tell me to shut up, lol.
Renton Thurston Silly we are on the internet you have no freedom and no right here.
I don't...
Renton Thurston Freedom of speach only protects you from the government, not from other people
Brothers, tonight WE RETAKE JERUSALEM!!!!!!!!!!
This comment is 1 year old
Jerusalem is not christain yet
and than loose Jerusalem :(
its all
i got those bo1 vibes from that "TONIGHT WE TAKE VORKUTA"
THE HOLY LANDS WILL BE OURS
Without Crusades Europe would've given less value to religion, for they wouldn't send their troops to reclaim the "Holy Lands". This means scientists like Gallilei would've been able to experiment and gain knowledge without the church bashing their faces in. It might have had a positive outcome for Europe. But to speculate about topics like these is mere impossible, for a minor event we have no knowledge of could change the course of history.
Guinness HEEEEEY!!! THAT'S TRUE
Well, if you think about it, it is possible to have the opposite affect causing people to value Christianity more because it is a religion of peace and not war. There would probably be more Christians if the church thought of something. But, that is unlikely considering people were straying from the church. But, then again, the violence of the crusade did make many view Christians as violent and people would believe God is evil for allowing such massacre to happen in the first place. Without the violence, Christianity would either be very small in today's age or be even more praised for its view of non violence and equality. Shit, science would probably be used in Christian belief, explaining how God created things around us on a scientific level, making more Christian scientists prevalent. Galaleo would be able to do scientific study for the church. It could really go both ways...
Niop Tres I know right. We could never know...
One event could create many alternative timelines. That's the funny thing. There could be an infinite amount of time lines just from this post.
Lol xD
A very intriguing question, Cody. I like this video a lot. Well done!
Well, I think the Islam is defentetly not a part of europe!
what about turkey?
GeoXChannel roach country is part of Europe
All the andalousian culture, from where they are making money and tourists, is from islam
*western Europe
GeoXChannel How dare you create a channel named "GeoX" and do so much discrimination
God bless Queen Isabella and other great leaders from Iberian Peninsula such as Afonso I , Sancho I ,etc. if it wasn't for them my country(Portugal) would still be Muslim.
+Gazaaa v El Cid
God bless Isabella I and Fernando II, the most catholic rulers and saviors of Spain.
***** nope
They slaughtered innocent people and even killed christians who they suspected of being 'not loyal'
Bless Kemal Reis for rescuing Muslims/Jews affected by the Inquisition and re-settling them
"Eastern Orthodoxy was only around for a few decades." No, Catholicism was around for a few decades, Orthodoxy was there since 4th century.
What are you talking about? Orthodoxy branched off of Catholicism
Nein! The Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople excomunicated each other, so it was a classical break up like two people sick of each other and said FUCK YOU at the same time. Also it was the Pope's fault because of his filthy interests, wanting to gain support in the Balkans, with all costs! So basically, the Pope was a bitch!
It was the Pope's emissaries led by Humbert that created the breach. Both sides understood the weakness the argument between the factions caused and the opportunity it gave Christianity's enemies so they wanted to find common ground.
Sadly they didn't. Humbert and his party grew weary of the debate and acted on their own. Pope Leo IX did not provide or sign any papal bull and even after the posting of it could not have done so as he had died even b4 Humbert's actions.
The arrogance of both sides and the failure to act as Christians should; doomed Byzantium in the long run (sundering it from it's natural allies in Europe) and decisively weakened Christian attempts to reverse the onslaught of Islam for several centuries
+Crazy FBI : It is the other way around the Schismatics or Catholics as they were called later, broke the bonds and changed several main dogmatic elements in the religion. They are considered heretics.
It seems that even the people who went on crusades had confused perspectives about what the cause was.
DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT DEUS VULT
Saladin bitch..
@@KRoOoOoZ yeah he lost lmao
@@KRoOoOoZ saladin is a bitch?
If the crusades never occured, in Israel we wouldn't have had so many beautyful crusader castels all around.
Deus Vult!
Y'all lost, get over it
Cody: When I say crusade what do you think
Me: It's time for a bloody crusade
The division between the Latins and the Greeks was not that simple.
Its a 10 min video and thats one factor. He had to gloss over a lot
@@MrDalisclock It was not an accurate gloss.
@@ncpolley because its a very complex subject and he spent 2 minutes on it?
@@MrDalisclock Allow me to be more forceful. It's wrong, and the situation could have been better described in the same amount of time.
Crusaders against Jewish as such they were against Christianity also does exist!! Crusaders against Genghis Khan Empire also exist!! Crusaders against Rebellion Atheist People and Witchers also exist!! Crusaders against the opposite Christianity Belief also exist!! Crusaders against Templars also exist!!
Chess Key k
Witchers?
Cody, make a scenario on "What if the 4th Crusade never happened" im interested to know how different the world would have been if the stupid blood thirsty knights woudlnt have attacked Constantinople in 1204
Well, that would mean that a certain man named Alexios was either ignored or he was able to repay the crusaders and Venetians( thus there not being any angry crusaders sacking constantinople). Apparently, the Doge of Venice also really hated Byzantium as well.
So in conclusion, the problem lies in the Byzantium higher-ups and the terrible relationship they had with Venice. Maybe we should ask what if the Massacre of the Latins never happened first. There is obviously more to these problems though.
Elijah Pacheco Byzantium and Venice were trading rivals. Venice had colonies in Crimea and had to pay an extravagant fee to pass through the Dardanelles.
Saguntum-Iberian-Greek Konstantinopoli byzantium wouldt split to nicaea,trebiozond,and epir,bulgaria and latins wouldt take actions on raska,wich weakend byzantium drammaticly,balkan countries of bulgaria,raska and zeta would be more dependent of constantinopole,making strong enemies of ottomans
The muslims seriously wouldnt have invaded europe and really never expanded after the battle of toirs and the destruction of the ummayad caliphate in the 9th century leaving the less ambitious Abbasid caliphate which had 0 interest in the west so saying that the crusades saved europe from muslims is wrong. saving europe from itself is a more accurate term for the crusades.
No. The Orthodox Church was founded by The Council of Necea in 365AD. The Roman Catholic Church split from The Othodox Church in 1065AD when the Arch Bishop of Rome decided he wanted to unite the all the Orthodox Churches in Rome as one unified Church under his rule. HE was the first Pope. You have it backwards.
I would crusade all 9 times
Good man.
party like its 1095
An atheist sees this war as two sides fighting over which imaginary friend is better.
+Ben Grainger Funny thing is, they all believe in the same God, since Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Abrahamic religions.
Yeah. I know. I still don't know why they hate each other.
AD16
Ben Grainger Different beliefs because of different prophets.
AD16 oh the profit fight. Rants actually more retarded. All those religions believe in each profit so why can't they all be the profits of each religion. It's fucking retarded. Also, believe-belie-lie.
7:08 No such thing as an innocent Jew.
What are you doing here, Trump? Shouldn't you be calling Rosie O'Donnell a disgusting pig? ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
Well I am a zionist, left wing, socialist atheist but um you're rhetoric is kind of pathetic
Lmao
Dill For President Go on, I want to know more about how you are super unique and special...
I would laugh because it proves my point that the internet is riddled with blithering idiots.
If I think of crusades I think of venice pillaging Constantinople
What if for some odd chain of circumstances, the United States joined the Central Powers during WW1?
I wouldn't have been born a christian. So thank you crusaders
Yes you wouldve, you stupid shit. Religion is a choice
MrEvldreamr Why so angry ?
Getting triggered?
MrEvldreamr Bad day?
-
Sick of dumbass people thinking religion is a race. You can't look at someone and know their religion
MrEvldreamr Are you ok?
No one said that religion is a race.
What if North and South America were never found by the Europeans?
and been controling all of america
If Alexios I Komnenos had gotten the mercenaries he'd asked for, the entire middle east might have been liberated instead of being conquered and subjected to the petty whims of a multitude of ambitious franks. Given how successful his two successors were even with the Crusades, if they'd been in a stronger position they could have accomplished all manner of great things.
The Renaissance would not have been a sudden and revolutionary period of change, rather it would have begun sooner and been more gradual as the east stabilized under the Empire and the west maintained more cordial relations. The blight that was Venice would still have been problematic, but the Empire would have been in a much better position to resist and eventually subdue them (they were after all a rebellious imperial city).
Without the strains put on their relationship by the excesses of the Crusaders and the treachery of people like Bohemond and the Venetians, the Latins may well have been able to rejoin the rest of the church, coming to an amicable agreement by way of an eighth general council.
TLDR - Whoever rewrote the letter that Alexios sent to the pope is responsible for all manner of horrors and may well have been the one ultimately responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of the Ottomans, and ultimately all the disasters and horrors that afflicted the entire Eurasian continent thereafter.
Yep. Though one could question the whole letter rewritting thing, the crusades did seem convenient for the Pope at the time, considering the religious-political state of Europe. Not wanting to get all tin foil hat crazy here, but it doesn't seem far fetched that the Pope ordered rewritting that letter, after all reclaiming the territories to Constantinople and freeing them from muslim rule isn't that different right?
That or whoever rewrote the letter thought that exact same thing
Man this timeline sucks...
Thank you for making another excellent video AlternateHistoryHub but I do have one complaint that at 4:54 shows Muslims as overly barbaric as apposed to the Christians. I just wanted to point that out.
P.S I may be biased due to me being a Muslim from the middle east and keep up the good work Cody :)
eyads99 Oh lol. I was trying to make them more badass looking. That's just my drawing style.
P.S Thanks!
AlternateHistoryHub ah okay, well thanks for the explanation :)
eyads99 How is he supposed to make guys that are in full plate armour look barbaric.
Also, he should be able to draw them however he wishes, which he drew them in a fierce manner. Quite appropriate, honestly.
Besides, he didn't make the guys at 6:48 look so great either. Lol
is this a Collab with extra credits?
That's what I thought
0:09 definetly 2nd one , because I m a Muslim
If the crusades didn't happen, you would make an alternate history of what if it did happen and then in that alternate history you would make a video of what if it didn't happen
I'm no history expert, but I do have an idea of my own.
For one, science emerged as an unforeseen consequence of the crusades. It made Europeans question the bible, see more value in knowledge, and also gave them quite a bit of wealth. Science as we know it probably wouldn't exist. And by science, I mean the culture. Technological progress would likely still happen (though it may have been slowed down), but there would be no scientism. You certainly wouldn't see a creationism debate, at least in Europe. Its possible that science (or at least a form of it) may have arisen in the middle east instead, if at all.
Another consequence may have been that Europe would never have colonized the Americas. They would've had less resources to do so. And besides, technological progress likely would've been stymied due to internal conflicts and wide-spread poverty. Essentially Europe would've been more like the middle east today. They may even have been muslim, but even if they stayed christian they still would've ended up as backwards religious zealots plagued by terrorism, just like the middle east is today.
As for the Americas, things would look quite different if European powers never invaded. They probably would've have stayed independant to the modern day (I believe you discussed this possibility in another video), but I think it would mean that they would've been invaded by a different foreign power. Likely from the far east or maybe the middle east. The Americas would be unrecognizable to us if this happened.
One thing that would be really interesting is if China took over the Americas. This would be interesting for one reason: rice. In ancient China, there were two civilizations that emerged in the region. One in the north, and one in the south. Only the southern kingdom had an appropriate climate for growing rice. The Chinese however noticed something though, that eating rice had huge health benefits. And it really does btw. This actually prompted the northern kingdom to conquer the southern kingdom, purely so they could have access to their rice fields!
Of course, the Americas aren't as good for growing rice, so most of the people here would likely end up relying more on grain, but they would still see a value to rice. And I think that rice could be grown in the tropical climates of south and central America. Whoever had that land could forge a wealthy empire on rice, because every power on the continent would want it just so they could have fitter soldiers! But the land would also be highly contested no doubt, meaning that whatever nation developed in the amazon would be highly militant, authoritarian, and corrupt. Also, this would be a major environmental disaster. Its likely that the amazon rain forest would end up being cleared much faster just to make way for rice paddies, purely because of the economic advantage they gave.
To me, the impact of the crusades on our world was dramatic. Not that I'm saying they were a good thing, but they brought so much power and knowledge to Europe that our world would be unrecognizable if they didn't occur. English certainly wouldn't be as dominate as it is now. It would probably have stayed a minority language, restricted mostly to Europe. Especially considering that this means that the 'age of empires' would never have happened, thus there would've been no British empire spreading English all across the planet.
In a way, the crusades affected our entire world. If they never happened, the world as it is now wouldn't even be recognizable to us.