Were the Northern Crusades Justified?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 сер 2018
- Were the Northern Crusades Justified? RCH on Patreon:
/ realcrusadeshistory
Donate through PayPal:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
My novel set during the Crusades:
www.amazon.com/Why-Does-Heath...
Facebook:
/ realcrusadeshistory
Were the Northern Crusades Justified?
#NorthernCrusades #TeutonicKnights #BalticCrusades
Still didn't give them a right to commit a genocide
Well explained. Lot of people tried to apply same modern moral values to medieval times. It doesn't work
Remember the Medieval period is very violent, ransom was seen as a valid way of getting cash, looting and Sacking was normal if the enemy did not surrender and if you are of a different religion the other side who defeated you would also likely sell you as slaves though depending on the religion you follow even if you are of the same religion they would likely sell you anyway.
Applying Modern values to these people is like mixing oil and water.
Hadn't thought about this before. Very interesting video thanks
Kinda reminds me about how people talk about how evil Cortez was when he conquered Mexico, conveniently forgetting that the Aztecs were cutting the hearts out of all their neighbors.
@Redsand Cortez brought Christianity and Civilization to a people who had descended into the darkeness of paganism and barbarity. He was almost universally welcomed by the other tribes in the region and helped them overthrow their Aztec oppressors. In the campaign against the Aztec's he led his men courageously and daringly. Later in life after the conquests he fought to end slavery and the mistreatment of the Natives. Though not a perfect man by any means if we judge Cortez by the same measure we judge the natives then he stands as a paragon of virtue.
And the fact that Mexicans today aren't aztec and they are a mixed race of the aztec and Spanish people with their culture is a hybrid of both and they speak Spanish and worship god and not the pagan gods
Cortez still was evil.
What happened to the natives that aided the Spanish?
@@yorktown58 That is a question that isn’t often asked. Some of the more powerful city states like Tlaxcala who were related ,but enemies of Mexica aka Aztecs lived in relative comfort in comparison to the other groups. Their royals and nobility were given privileges by the Spanish crown. They also managed to escape a lot of the abuses, such as slavery through the encomienda system, and rape imposed the natives that were conquered by, the conquistadors and Spanish settlers, Unfortunately, the European diseases brought over by the Spaniards did not differentiate between the Aztecs and the Spaniards Indian allies.
As a wise man once said: Deus Vult never ends with a question mark but instead with a strong and firm exclamation mark.
good luck larping
I wonder if there were movies that shows the Teutonic Knights perspective of the northern crusade.
Are there even decent movies showing any perspective? Most people in world talk about the crusades into so called Holy Lands and ignore anything else, maybe mention the 4th crusade as side note.
People really need to examine the side they sanctify before they do so. The Teutons and Crusaders weren't perfect... but the wars were not without cause.
Neither were the Prussian raids into Mazovia without a cause.
Good video, I wrote a paper on this exact topic last semester
Which degree?
For my history bachelors
cool, how did it go?
Thanks for your work RCH. I'm curious as to what happened to your videos about the myths surrounding the Templars. Are you redoing them for a later post or something else? Also, what plans do you have after exploring the Northern crusades? Will you be looking at the Hussite wars or covering other lesser known ones like the Bosnian or Waldensian crusades? Eithier way I eagerly await your next videos. All the best.
Can I get a date on that Polish invasion of Prussia the book refers to? I want to research that.
Konrad of Mazovia organized two raids on Prussia, one in 1222 and second one in 1223.
Thanks.
Yup, this was a very interesting video. Underlying facts can put a whole different twist and perspective on any given situation.
The facts you have given here definitely shines some light on the Teutonic Knights and the northern crusade.
The "facts" he's giving most probably come from the same people who did the conquering or some of their co-religionists. It's "throwing babies of of incubators" like in 1990 kuwait, just a few hundreds years before.
Bogdan Bogdanoff sources?
Ask the author first, because he doesn't think quoting is necessary. As far as anyone else is concerned he might've come up with it himself
Bogdan Bogdanoff Yes, you're right.
Which of Urban's books/journals were these excerpts from?
Is fratricide wrong?
In 1206, a Danish army led by king Valdemar IIand Andreas, the Bishop of Lund landed on Saaremaa and attempted to establish a stronghold without success. In 1216 the Livonian Brothers of the Sword and the bishop Theodorich joined forces and invaded Saaremaa over the frozen sea. In return the Oeselians raided the territories in Latvia that were under German rule the following spring. In 1220, the Swedish army led by king John I of Sweden and the bishop Karl of Linköpingconquered Lihula in Rotalia in Western Estonia. Oeselians attacked the Swedish stronghold the same year, conquered it and killed the entire Swedish garrison including the Bishop of Linköping.
In 1222, the Danish king Valdemar IIattempted the second conquest of Saaremaa, this time establishing a stone fortress housing a strong garrison. The Danish stronghold was besieged and surrendered within five days, the Danish garrison returned to Revel, leaving bishop Albert of Riga's brother Theodoric, and few others, behind as hostages for peace. The castle was razed to the ground by the Oeselians.[9]
A 20,000 strong army under Papal legate William of Modena crossed the frozen sea while the Saaremaa fleet was icebound, in January 1227.
A truce between the war-weary sides was established for three years (1213-1215)
Today, the Battle of Lyndanisse is perhaps best known for a legend that the Danish flag, the Dannebrog, fell from the sky just as the Danes were about to lose the battle.
We also should not forget about a very important aspect. The conflict between Poles and Prussians lasted for centuries before northern crusades (since mid Xth century). It was mainly the prussian side that was more aggresive and more often invaded Polish lands. Of course when Poland was strong nad united Polish kings and princes also invaded prussia but their aim was to postpone the danger od future prussian attacks. That's why in the beginning Poles were in favour of German northern crusades.
thank you. all these lesson help give perspective of the culture we inherited
This reminds me of Rodney Stark's 'The Rise of Christianity" (1996). Great read byw. The pagans described here paralell so much with the ancient Romans.
Was there a crusade that wasn't justified...
...technicaly a trick question due to cases like the "4th crusade" that wasn't one but was justified.
Yes
Is this a reupload??
It seems like he was so extremely BTFO by comments, including mine that he deleted the old video along with all of the discussion that took place to get rid of all holes we poked in his little charlatan routine. There were many hot takes on northern crusades that were lost. This infanticide angle was nothing more than propaganda of the time most likely and there was a lot of other solid arguments thrown both ways. It's really pathetic of channel owner.
Why aren’t you on Rumble? I feel like you might be missing out on a chunk of potential audience, plus you would never need to worry about getting demonetized there
For every UA-cam video about war there always seems to follow a war in the comment section
Santiago!
Dieter H. Rush?
Viva España!
NO, I'm finnish and this is what everyone forgets. The crusades against islam were partially justifiable but the northern crusades were just religious war not to reclaim but to expand their influence.
christian neighbors raided balts all the same, or sometimes even allies with them like Prussian pagans with duke Swietopelk II.
Real Crusades History I have studied these crusades for a couple years, more specifically the Livonian and Estonian crusades. I am writing a fiction book on the subject, and I would like to share my opinion with you. The Baltic peoples were far from innocent, they committed the same crimes which the Christians took part of. Slavery and abduction of women and children was a common part of warfare at this time. A plethora of times in “The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia” does the writer mention both pagan and Christian soldiers abducting women to be their wives or concubines and stealing children to serve them and to train as soldiers. In terms of land and territory, (mostly in the specific crusades aforementioned, not sure about the farther west crusades such as in Prussia) the crusaders had no right to take land from somewhat peaceful peoples. There are accounts of Oeselians (a group of Estonians) raiding Christian European areas, but these are scarce. In terms of misdeeds and immorality of the Livonia Brothers of the Militia and the Teutonic Knights, there were just as many immoral acts from the pagans (albeit retaliating against the invaders). It boils down to simple matters of war; there is no ‘good and evil’ as some people would like to believe, but there is only human nature and the horrors of war. It was a war of belief, no matter how many people were seeking to gain profit. In truth, the crusades may not have taken place if the pagans were Orthodox or, even Roman Catholic. Belief divided them, and it tore families apart, snuffed out lives, and ultimately amounted in an excess of unnecessary bloodshed.
Thank you for reading this chunky paragraph. If you see anything needing correcting or want to share your thoughts, please do. 🙂
Oselians & curonians stronk
@@barnettpesin99 that was because of the Novgorod was wealthy and some abberants were lured by the wealth. The crusades were mainly directed against non Christians.
Is this a reupload?
Good question
He got rustled by people poking holes in his flawed narrative
I would say no. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Well I have no slim skin in the game so I'll side with whatever side had cooler armor...and it's the Teutons. It's always the Teutons.
A wise man once said.. "ALL CRUSADES ARE JUST!"
+ Kyro All we need is more of them!
So when's that holy war for europe going to be called? Maybe for palestine? No?
You're an idiot. The Teutonic knights kept on raping and pillaging the baltic people until the middle of 1400s. Poland became a Christian country in 996, yet had to fight the Teutonic invasion for 400+ more years.
Julius Caesar’s invasion of Gaul or the Norse invasion of England certainly weren’t but most pop history lovers have no problems with either of them.
Another fascinating presentation! The Northern Crusades were justified to defend the Christians who were frequent victims of Baltic barbarian raids for slaves and booty. Self defense justifies war...and defense against slave raids is a very very good reason for war.
It's literally like saying that WTC attacks justified invasion of Iraq. The raids weren't even coming from 90% of the tribes Teutons annihilated. The sheer idiocy of people who cling to keep justifying brother wars in the name of faith astounds me.
Bogdan Bogdanoff. The sheer idiocy of foolishly asserting that German knights should not have defended the German and Polish villagers from the continual raids by the Baltic nations for slaves, booty and murder...is clinging to barbarity beyond what a normal human would think is justified. Most civilized Westerners place a value on protecting defenseless villagers; men, woman and children from murder, rape and slavery. Or are you one of those persons who thinks slavery, rape, robbery and murder are good?
@Patz13 and what did the teutons do to the balts. Kill far more innocent peasants and eradicate their entire bloodline for the actions of very few. Stop your bullshit whataboutisms and accept that those teutons are rotting in hell.
not grounds for destroying of religion and culture
Seriously ! ?
While infanticide is a characteristic more common to Pagan societies, it shouldn't be said of slavery. Slavery was common under much of Christendom as well. In particular many Popes advocated for the enslavement of non Christians. And Poland and Italy did have slavery. The Pagan societies had slavery because it was economical, and they had trade partners who sought them. So to say that Pagan societies were bad because they had slavery isn't really fair as the majority of civilizations, even those who weren't 'primitive' had them too. Is slavery itself a bad thing? Yes it is. But all of us have things our ancestors did which we won't agree with. Now I can see why defending ones border would be justified, but I don't think the conquering of the Prussians was just, nor the eradication of their general traditions(besides things like infanticide), their language, or religion. If say a Christian Kingdom had taken territory alongside the border of a Pagan societies territory, and the Pagans fought back and then conquered that Kingdom and then forces everyone back to that particular groups own version of Paganism, would that be right? No, the military victory might've been justified, but the other actions are not only unjust by way of Religious choice, but also because it's petty. And I'm saying this as a Pagan myself. People should be able to follow their traditions and practice the religion of their choice.
Are you european neo pagan?
Really can't take modern pagans seriously.
If you’re talking about slavery in Christendom, you would be describing pre-feudal society, basically late Rome to early post-Rome. It gradually faded away.
@Mor MacFey Note that I said *gradually*, and not instantly, or even quickly.
Gradual means slowly. 1500 years means it was very, very gradual.
It’s true that the pagans were not perfect, Christianity has done some good. But here I agree with Jason and think the Baltic peoples were right over all.
Northern crusade are absolutely success
Lets be honest, do you really need to be justified to start a good o'l crusade?
By the way, im a new sub but im really enjoying your videos!
as a european i want justification from people which workship a middle eastern lord, why they kill quiet peacefull people which workship native european gods.
@@misterrex684 They were neither quiet nor peaceful. Peace was not a thing before modern times.
Destroy a spirituality and a culture is rarely justified. This time of course it’s not justified.
The Baltic pagan chieftains and elites maintained their lifestyle through slave raids against Christian territory. At a certain point, the Christians decided that they couldn't continue to allow this threat to exist. They decided they needed to launch the Northern Crusades to permanently end the threat of slave raids from the Baltic pagans. This aspect of the Northern Crusades is often ignored in our popular culture, but it's important. You have to consider all sides and perspectives when dealing with history.
Real Crusades History maybe because these people did not want to become Christian. You must consider all sides when you talk about history.
Absolutely. But perhaps the Balts shouldn't have been making constant slave raids into Christian territory. Surely it's not surprising that a region subjected to continuous harassment might retaliate.
Real Crusades History Polish people could do the same.
@@loganvervicos8395 I'm not saying the crusaders were the 'knights in shining armor' that people like to portray them as; their tactics were brutal and forcing religion on someone is wrong. But slave raids and infanticide? C'mon man, surely you can't support that barbarism. The Balts got what was coming to them.
Deus vult comrade?
Da!
I find interesting and often misleading the idea of something was 'justified' or not by the actors that played their parts.
Per example, the attack of 9/11. Although we all agree (I hope) that this event was an outrageous and cruel attack, I dont think we could say that it was 'unjustified', because for the people who hijacked the planes and killed thousands that day, it was a totally legitimate act, even thou every human being should disapprove of their actions.
With that in mind, we must then realise that the conflicts that happened in history all had justifications. And there are two ways to judge the past. (1) The sources we read. If we tell the history of the Crusades only reading the muslim sources, we will have a very different view of the whole event. And if we were all Muslims, the Crusaders would be the villains, which brings me to (2) The values we hold on while reading the sources. Catholic Christians mostly will approve the Crusades, Protestant not so much, while Muslims and Jews hate the moviment as a whole...
With all that being said, my conclusion is that what makes something 'just' or not is mostly anachronic. We, nowadays, as historians, dont have the skills to judge the past, not at all. What we can do is explain 'What was the warriors' justification for the Northern Crusades', which I think would do a much more interesting video... But that's just my piece of mind.
Keep making good videos
The point of this video honestly wasn't really to say whether or not the Northern Crusades were justified. The point was to show that the pagan tribes, usually perceived as innocent victims in the Northern Crusades, were in fact militant actors in their own right, and some of their own conduct helped create the conditions in which the Northern Crusades were launched. Basically, I wanted to introduce some nuance into the usual simplified and moralistic view of the Northern Crusades.
I don't have a complete look into the bibliography of the Northern Crusades, but I never heard a serious historian portraying the pagans as 'innocent' and the teutonic knights as 'evil'.
The Sith Emperor Yes, I agree. The problem is that history is subjective. You can literally use the same document and have two different narratives.
The only problem I see with your logic is slavery. Would slavery be a justified act?
@@RealCrusadesHistory pagans were as millitant as christians were, well except for the fact that christians destroyed their religion and cultures. could even *justify* the pagans pre-crusade raids on christian lands as a result of the frustration that came with christian merchants not willing to do much trade with pagans. kind of like they were forced to go raiding, just so the pagans could stay alive and keep themselves afloat. of course these raids were not justifiable basis for christians to completely destroy the religions of these pagans and in some cases even completely wipe out certain cultures.
Deus vult!
Saved by grace not works
If that's the case then the Baltic region would have never been saved 'cause it took work to convert them
@g L. Nah all the tectonic knights are rotting in hell right now
Yes
Anyone who says "No" should be in an asylum.
Yes