The Truth About The Crusades - General

[video=youtube;-ilFbbk9jw4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4[/video] Pretty nice watch if you got the time and tells the story of things which are not commonly in the school history books.

This guy has been revisionist as hell in the past. But I'll check it out at least

[QUOTE=Evanstr;51616703]Pretty nice watch if you got the time and [U]tells the story of things which are not commonly in the school history books.[/U][/QUOTE] Interesting, a very big part of our history lessons is about the rise of the Ottoman Empire and us fighting them. For a long time most of remaining Croatian land was a buffer zone called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Frontier"]military frontier[/URL] made to stop the invading Muslim armies. The guy in the video hasn't said anything I haven't learned in school already.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51616791]Interesting, a very big part of our history lessons is about the rise of the Ottoman Empire and us fighting them. For a long time most of remaining Croatian land was a buffer zone called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Frontier"]military frontier[/URL] made to stop the invading Muslim armies. The guy in the video hasn't said anything I haven't learned in school already.[/QUOTE] Croatia was a lot more involved with the history. In the USA I didn't really learn about most of this, just the triangle trade. Some key points I took from the video [quote] First crusade called after 400 years of Muslim aggression, imperialism, and desecration of Christian holy sites. Christians were massacred and highly persecuted in Muslim territories when they were rarely not forcibly converted. The first Muslim empire spanned a territory of 9 million square kilometers. Close to the size of modern day USA. The second Muslim empire spanned nearly 15 million square kilometers. Close to the size of modern day Russia. This occurred in less than 130 years. After the fall of the Byzantine empire Muslim forces were in the heart of Europe, at Vienna, in less than a century. Islam dominated the slave trade between the 7th and 15th century with Christians entering the slave market in 1519. [/quote] I wish he went more into detail about the numerous Crusades and their effectiveness. Either way, great video and I highly recommend people watch it. Thanks for sharing! Edit: Fayez, hopefully you are writing a detailed response on your opinion and not just shitting the thread with ratings. I'm trying to learn here.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51616791]Interesting, a very big part of our history lessons is about the rise of the Ottoman Empire and us fighting them. For a long time most of remaining Croatian land was a buffer zone called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Frontier"]military frontier[/URL] made to stop the invading Muslim armies. The guy in the video hasn't said anything I haven't learned in school already.[/QUOTE] Personally I never even knew Muslims owned allot of Spain until playing fucking Europa unversalis, Australian history lessons for me rarely touched on this part of history other than Christians went and killed lots of Muslims. Though the teachers I had never where once passionate about teaching which could be a reason.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51616808]Croatia was a lot more involved with the history. In the USA I didn't really learn about most of this, just the triangle trade. Some key points I took from the video I wish he went more into detail about the numerous Crusades and their effectiveness. Either way, great video and I highly recommend people watch it. Thanks for sharing! Edit: Fayez, hopefully you are writing a detailed response on your opinion and take and not just shitting the thread with ratings. I'm trying to learn here.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]First crusade called after 400 years of Muslim aggression, imperialism, and desecration of Christian holy sites. Christians were massacred and highly persecuted in Muslim territories when they were rarely not forcibly converted. [/QUOTE] Okay, these points are fundamentally flawed and have an obvious modern political slant. The organizing of a hugely diverse group such as Muslims into a single monolithic block should throw up major red flags. [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2lz2ix/i_saw_this_article_about_the_crusades_posted_on/"]This thread on AskHistorians goes into much more detail about why these points are flawed.[/URL] [QUOTE]The first Muslim empire spanned a territory of 9 million square kilometers. Close to the size of modern day USA. The second Muslim empire spanned nearly 15 million square kilometers. Close to the size of modern day Russia. This occurred in less than 130 years[/QUOTE] These are basic historical facts. [QUOTE] After the fall of the Byzantine empire Muslim forces were in the heart of Europe, at Vienna, in less than a century.[/QUOTE] Turkish forces were at the gates of Vienna, they just happened to be Muslim. Them being Muslim didn't make them want to invade Europe. [QUOTE] Islam dominated the slave trade between the 7th and 15th century with Christians entering the slave market in 1519.[/QUOTE] Again, referring to the slave trade as "Islamic." Do we call the Trans-Atlantic slave trade the "Christian Slave Trade?" [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gdaay/did_the_slaves_coming_to_the_new_world_from/cajbxxq/"]Plus the slavery they committed was not equivalent to the later European form of slavery.[/URL] Sorry for linking Reddit posts, but they come from a reputable sub and are much better at explaining the facts than I am.

One interesting part I didn't see him mentioning were the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries"]janissaries[/URL]. In short they would take young boys from the occupied regions, raise them and convert to Islam and give them military training, and in the end make them fight their own people. They were not usual slaves, but not free either, they couldn't marry and stuff.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51616870]One interesting part I didn't see him mentioning were the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries"]janissaries[/URL]. In short they would take young boys from the occupied regions, raise them and convert to Islam and give them military training, and in the end make them fight their own people. They were not usual slaves, but not free either, they couldn't marry and stuff.[/QUOTE] I think I recall him saying none Muslim kids being stolen from there families and put into military service (15-18)

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51616870]One interesting part I didn't see him mentioning were the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries"]janissaries[/URL]. In short they would take young boys from the occupied regions, raise them and convert to Islam and give them military training, and in the end make them fight their own people. They were not usual slaves, but not free either, they couldn't marry and stuff.[/QUOTE] He actually mentions exactly this. [editline]3rd January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Fayez;51616856]Okay, these points are fundamentally flawed and have an obvious modern political slant. The organizing of a hugely diverse group such as Muslims into a single monolithic block should throw up major red flags. [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2lz2ix/i_saw_this_article_about_the_crusades_posted_on/"]This thread on AskHistorians goes into much more detail about why these points are flawed.[/URL] These are basic historical facts. Turkish forces were at the gates of Vienna, they just happened to be Muslim. Them being Muslim didn't make them want to invade Europe. Again, referring to the slave trade as "Islamic." Do we call the Trans-Atlantic slave trade the "Christian Slave Trade?" [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gdaay/did_the_slaves_coming_to_the_new_world_from/cajbxxq/"]Plus the slavery they committed was not equivalent to the later European form of slavery.[/URL] Sorry for linking Reddit posts, but they come from a reputable sub and are much better at explaining the facts than I am.[/QUOTE] 1. Crusades in response to Muslim aggression [quote]While I agree that the notion of a "defensive action" might be problematic in the context of discussions of medieval warfare, we can justify the idea that Urban II's speech at Clermont called for collective action, compelling the people of Latin Christendom to protect their Eastern brethren. Urban II's speech survives in four versions, all of which differ from each other, but there emerges in several of the speeches this notion of protection or defense. Fulcher of Chartres writes, "For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them." Baldric of Dol is more graphic, "We have heard, most beloved brethren, and you have heard what we cannot recount without deep sorrow how, with great hurt and dire sufferings our Christian brothers, members in Christ, are scourged, oppressed, and injured in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and the other cities of the East. Your own blood brothers, your companions, your associates (for you are sons of the same Christ and the same Church) are either subjected in their inherited homes to other masters, or are driven from them, or they come as beggars among us; or, which is far worse, they are flogged and exiled as slaves for sale in their own land. Christian blood, redeemed by the blood of Christ, has been shed, and Christian flesh, akin to the flesh of Christ, has been subjected to unspeakable degradation and servitude." Whether or not this can equate to a defensive war is questionable at best, but we can see ideas of protection and Christian brotherhood at play in Urban's speech. Full versions of the speeches can be found here: [url]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html[/url].[/quote] Seems like an accurate statement. Christians had control of Jerusalem for hundreds of years before it was captured by Muslims. 2. Historical facts aren't funny 3. Just happened to be Muslim is still Muslim. I imagine the Christians at the time were not happy to have a hostile force, especially one of differing religion knocking at their doorstep. 4. Good point, however being Muslim is the unifying connection in that slave trade. What would be the proper terminology to refer to the widespread slavery of their cultures from the 7th to 15th century? Thanks a lot for replying and the reddit sources aren't a problem for me, very interesting reads.

[QUOTE=Fayez;51616856]Okay, these points are fundamentally flawed and have an obvious modern political slant. [U]The organizing of a hugely diverse group such as Muslims into a single monolithic block should throw up major red flags.[/U][/QUOTE] Even wikipedia calls it that: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests[/URL] [QUOTE]The early [B]Muslim conquests[/B] (Arabic: الفتوحات الإسلامية‎‎, al-Futūḥāt al-Islāmiyya) also referred to as the [B]Arab conquests[/B][2] and [B]early Islamic conquests[/B][3] began with the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century. He established [B][U]a new unified polity[/U][/B] in the Arabian Peninsula which under the subsequent Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates saw a century of rapid expansion.[/QUOTE]

The spin on the video and your posts is so obvious it's almost funny [editline]3rd January 2017[/editline] The first major red flag is titles that involve "The Truth"

No surprise there that Islam engaged similar activities to Christianity, after all they are both violent religions, one just had more opportunity to evolve than the other.

[QUOTE=Overhauser;51616912]The spin on the video and your posts is so obvious it's almost funny [editline]3rd January 2017[/editline] The first major red flag is titles that involve "The Truth"[/QUOTE] Not an argument.

[QUOTE=Silikone;51617393]Not an argument.[/QUOTE] Where did you learn to channel the spirit of stefan molyneux so well? I could never get Jesus to take the wheel either so I'm pretty new to this

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51617450]Where did you learn to channel the spirit of stefan molyneux so well? [/QUOTE] I wasn't spanked as a child.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51616870]One interesting part I didn't see him mentioning were the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries"]janissaries[/URL]. In short they would take young boys from the occupied regions, raise them and convert to Islam and give them military training, and in the end make them fight their own people. They were not usual slaves, but not free either, they couldn't marry and stuff.[/QUOTE] ~21:00 Just going to confirm that pretty much everything here is fair in history terms. Nothing really controversial, just goes beyond what high school level textbook would teach you.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51617734]How is this related to Crusades at all? Do we really to believe that Crusaders, lords that were primarily motivated by land and wealth, cared so much about the poor Christian folk of the East? Crusades were political conquests, just like any other. They were supposed to help Byzantium but hardly did that. They instead went ahead and took random castles in the Levant like Tripoli, Edessa, Antioch. Like the pick a chair game in the kindergarden. To make it about revenge or righteousness is outright absurd.[/QUOTE] For people fighting for Christendom the crusaders actually managed to kill a whole lot of Christians too. And there's just some other details that make me think that this video is doing a bit of the inverse of how some leftists will be overly apologetic for Islam. Such as neglecting events such as the northern crusades, and hell, if he wants to jump so far ahead into the times of the slave trade, I can bring up millions of dead from the protestant reformation such as a third of Germany dying in the 30 years war, 20 million dead from the Taiping rebellion, and so-on. But really, that's pointless, because I don't really care what tally we can come up with for religious deaths and atrocities because it doesn't really seem to be useful and depending on how one wants to define things, they somehow can always pull out the answer they want. It's pretty reductionist at least to merely talk about the religion behind a lot of these things while ignoring other core causes.

Does he talk about the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_massacre_(1096)]Massacre of Worms[/url] or does he brush over that like most Crusadophiles

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51617973]Does he talk about the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_massacre_(1096)]Massacre of Worms[/url] or does he brush over that like most Crusadophiles[/QUOTE] Doesn't mention it all

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51617977]Doesn't mention it all[/QUOTE] Disgusting

To be fair if you wanted a comprehensive look at history, you probably shouldn't expect it from a pundit youtube channel. The information is accurate, but do realize the video is obviously going to focus on muslim related issues considering the presenter.

[QUOTE=Fayez;51616856]Turkish forces were at the gates of Vienna, they just happened to be Muslim. Them being Muslim didn't make them want to invade Europe.[/QUOTE] Crusader forces were at the gates of Jerusalem, they just happened to be Christian. Them being Christian didn't make them want to invade the Levant.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51618019]To be fair if you wanted a comprehensive look at history, you probably shouldn't expect it from a pundit youtube channel. The information is accurate, but do realize the video is obviously going to focus on muslim related issues considering the presenter.[/QUOTE] Which I find a bit shameful, to be calling it "THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRUSADES" while making such a propaganda oriented video. You can never touch on everything and you'll never be rid of bias but a good educator should make it clear what they are skipping/simplifying and whatever.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51617973]Does he talk about the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_massacre_(1096)]Massacre of Worms[/url] or does he brush over that like most Crusadophiles[/QUOTE] The disgusting actions of individual crusaders is a different topic than that of the goals of the crusades as a whole, especially in a time when communications were slow. Note that the bishop tried to stop the slaughter.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51618051]Which I find a bit shameful, to be calling it "THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRUSADES" while making such a propaganda oriented video. You can never touch on everything and you'll never be rid of bias but a good educator should make it clear what they are skipping/simplifying and whatever.[/QUOTE] He titles like half of his videos like that. It's just Moleneux's style. Is it clickbaity? Sure, but he does it for everything so it's not a big deal if you know his channel.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51618095]Goals of the crusaders is a different topic?[/QUOTE] There's a differences between: "The Crusades had goals X, Y, and Z, but certain individuals committed deplorable and disgusting acts in the process," and "The Crusades had deplorable and disgusting goals." They are usually presented as the latter when the prior is more accurate. [editline]3rd January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Trebgarta;51618095][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres[/URL] I think jew killings were pretty much a goal as well, according to the Crusaders themselves.[/QUOTE] So... what part of this is showing it to have been the goal of the crusades? That wiki pretty specifically says that it, in fact, WASN'T part of the crusade's goals, but that certain people committed those acts on their own.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51618915]There's a differences between: "The Crusades had goals X, Y, and Z, but certain individuals committed deplorable and disgusting acts in the process," and "The Crusades had deplorable and disgusting goals." They are usually presented as the latter when the prior is more accurate. [editline]3rd January 2017[/editline] So... what part of this is showing it to have been the goal of the crusades? That wiki pretty specifically says that it, in fact, WASN'T part of the crusade's goals, but that certain people committed those acts on their own.[/QUOTE] Who sets the crusades goals? Maybe people like this guy... [quote]Godfrey of Bouillon (18 September 1060 – 18 July 1100) was a Frankish knight, and one of the leaders of the First Crusade from 1096 until his death.[/quote] What you are asking for is in the very first chapter of that article [quote]“to go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name 'Jew,' thus assuaging his own burning wrath.”[/quote]

[QUOTE=Overhauser;51618928]Who sets the crusades goals? Maybe people like this guy... What you are asking for is in the very first chapter of that article[/QUOTE] I mean, the quote specifically says that he wanted to do that BEFORE going on the journey to the crusades. You won't find me defending the antisemitism of Europe in the middle ages. It was widespread and disgusting, but it wasn't an effect of the crusades. [editline]3rd January 2017[/editline] You also ignored the very next sentence after that quote: "Emperor Henry IV (after being notified of the pledge by Kalonymus Ben Meshullam, the Jewish leader in Mainz) issued an order prohibiting such an action. Godfrey claimed he never really intended to kill Jews"

[quote] "Emperor Henry IV (after being notified of the pledge by Kalonymus Ben Meshullam, the Jewish leader in Mainz) issued an order prohibiting such an action. Godfrey claimed he never really intended to kill Jews"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sgman91;51619185]I mean, the quote specifically says that [B]he wanted to do that[/B] BEFORE going on the journey to the crusades. [/quote] [editline]4th January 2017[/editline] In result: Saying "it wasn't a goal" is just as wrong as saying that it was. There are as many goals as there were crusaders. If you want to talk goals you always have to specify WHOs goals you are talking about. I am really not a friend of simplified discussions like this when there are scholars dedicating their whole lives to these questions and I think it's a bit dismissive and cocky to think that we can answer it. This also includes simplified sentences such as "it wasn't an effect of the crusades" because it damn well was. Te article shows this. Among others. The "being and effect of" is not exclusive to other reasons.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51618019]To be fair if you wanted a comprehensive look at history, you probably shouldn't expect it from a pundit youtube channel. The information is accurate, but do realize the video is obviously going to focus on muslim related issues considering the presenter.[/QUOTE] The broad strokes are accurate but it generalizes a lot and assumes that the Muslim world is one monolithic entity that opposed Christendom. A huge part of his narrative is based on this idea which simply doesn't hold up to historical analysis. It's the oversimplified, partial truth of the crusades as told by someone who see's a narrative being pushed and wants to push back. Welcome to Molyneux. [editline]3rd January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51617973]Does he talk about the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_massacre_(1096)]Massacre of Worms[/url] or does he brush over that like most Crusadophiles[/QUOTE] He doesn't criticize Christians or Europeans whatsoever. I get that he opposes the self-castigation that is popular when it comes to the topic of the Crusades but he swings the pendulum to the far other side and ends up being about as accurate as the people he criticizes.