Why The Crusades Were Awesome, Actually

Sadly this video will only be buried under the YouTube algorithm while anti-Christian rhetoric will continue to be promoted institutionally and commercially.

It's easy to condemn the "find out" when you ignore the "fuck around" that preceded it...

In the Philippines, we studied the Crusades as a positive thing in schools. I was surprised that we view this history very different from Western standpoint.

Some kings were good, other kings were trash, some spared everyone, others killed everyone, thats what happened and still happens today, but now, no one cares...

Calling the Crusades an unprovoked attack on Muslim territory is like calling D Day an unprovoked attack on German territory. I can understand saying that it was sad that it ever became necessary, but it's not shameful to fight for survival or to regain what was taken.

People always seem to FORGET that the crusades were a response to 800 years of Muslim aggression.

Thanks for researching this topic. It is hard to be faithful in these times especially when christians from my own congregation tell me how shameful the crusades were.

This was truly a massive eye-opener for me! thank you

I had to write a report on the crusades my sophomore year. I pretty much said what you’re saying here, and the teacher gave me a zero. She also threatened to fail me for the year because I defined Jihad as a holy war, even though I asked an actual practicing Muslim about the Islamic definition. This was 2014, I can only imagine how much history has been further bastardized since then

I like how the christians are always condemned yet somehow the islam atrocities are consistently ignored...

"It took Christianity 300 years of being put to the sword by Islam, having 2/3 of the Christian world conquered - with millions butchered, and over a million more Europeans carted off across the Mediterranean into slavery before the first crusade was called."

Anyone who would like to delve deeper into learning about the Crusades should read the book 'The Crusades: the Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land' by Thomas Asbridge.

As an Romanian I can say that our history books appreciate the crusades , especially the late ones that we participated in like Varna , because the Ottomans have been a constant threat to us until the 19th century

As a french, I'm always surprised by the way the Crusades are viewed by the anglo-saxon public. I've never heard something as "The Crusade were aggression" or "a terrible crime". It was an adventure, driven by faith, and which gave rise to exchanges more than a simple fight between enemy religions. The Middle East being at the time one very diverse region, in its cultural and religious mix. Also, it should not be forgotten that, at the time of the Crusaders, the Middle East was a Christian land only a few centuries ago. Islam having only appeared in the 7th century and the first crusade taking place at the beginning of the 11th century

France Germany and England getting along? Yea shit got real...

Puzzling to me is the people that attack the crusades but are oddly silent on the forced expansion of Islam.

Can't even imagine what a crazy undertaking this was for the soldiers, after that notorious travel distance to fight an unknown enemy for months.

I have always hated that film for some of the reasons outlined in this video. Good work!

I love how much facts are misrepresented whether on accident or purpose. For one the Battle of Tours in 732 is what prevented the spread of Islam into Europe through France, the Umayyads never really posed a threat since, as well as the fact that Asturias was never conquered as an Iberian Catholic Nation. That the only real threat was after the Battle of Manzikert where the Eastern Roman Empire really mishandled their entire state and it led to the absolute failure that was 1071 allowing for the Seljuks to push into Anatolia. So about 200 years after the Battle of Tours did they start the First Crusade in response to the Eastern Roman Empire's massive fumble. TBF the Eastern Roman Empire wasn't longed for this world after this especially as there was so much in-fighting for the ERE. The ERE slowly withers it makes sense for it to give rise to another nation, it so happened to be Muslim, which you used pre-text of the Battle of Tours (and ignoring the reconquista that has been successful so far) to launch a crusade to take land that you had lost over 400 years ago. Also note that Catholics could still make Pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and live there, although with restrictions (Jizya Tax) and depending on the caliph and local lords the people were sometimes subject to horrible things. However, this was just as equal as Catholics treated Muslims inside of Europe, regardless if there were the 'aggressors' as they simply converted, or moved there and had nothing to do with the wars themselves. Jerusalem was a holy site not for only Catholics, but every Abrahamic faith, so all sects of Christianity, Jews, and Muslims. However, under Islam rule Dhimmi had restrictions, but also exemptions unlike Islam's under Catholic rule, even Jews were persecuted inside of European nations, but were able to live in Selanika (Ottoman Empire) without persecution like the zealot Spanish Inquisitor. Also talking about morality of slaves of Islam and then ignoring all the slave trades of Europe is wild, especially as the word Slave comes from the name for the Slavic people. Both Catholics, and Muslims engaged in piracy (although somehow legal as it was called Privateering) and slavery, and slave trades. Most crusades were a failure in upholding Catholic 'morales' and 'tenets'. From pillaging, to slaughtering to sacking, these don't seem very Catholic, regardless of who you are doing it to. Arguable trying to convert them would've been better or just not engaged in such practices. Isn't charity a core part of Catholicism? What about the Sacking of Constantinople after they couldn't get the riches that were promised to them in the Fourth Crusade? Lastly, the Ottomans didn't fail due and decline to some combination of Catholics and more crusades. But rather a weaker control of the Sultan over his people due to incompetence as his Harem, Eunuchs, and Advisors controlled things. The Janissaries also had major control over the military. The Janissaries were what allowed the Ottomans to be so strong as it rose, but due to lack of centralisation, and no improvement in military tactics results in western powers being stronger and being able to push back the Ottoman's as they had grown weak in their own arrogance. So I leave these questions for anyone interested: 1. Would the Pope have called a crusade against the religion who won at the Battle of Manzikert and threatened Anatolia, and potentially the Balkans had it not been Islam? Maybe Coptic, Bogomils, Hindus, Tengri, etc. Why Islam after it had been 200 years since the Muslims were successful in taking land in Europe? 2. How were the crusades 'awesome' when it lead to many deaths, destruction, pillaging, sacking, stealing, and more. This doesn't seem very Catholic like. 3. Even though the First Crusade was a success and took back the Holy Land, the expelling of Muslims and Jews from the city of Jerusalem as well as increased levies taxes (akin to Jizya Tax) for the ones living inside of the Crusader State, isn't this just as bad as what Muslims have done if not worse? Why is it okay for Catholics to own Jerusalem but not Muslims? 4. If all crusades were successful, where would the line be? Should the reconquer all lands that existed under the Roman Empire? What about those that split of from Catholicism like the Armenians, or Ethiopians? Should crusades be called to bring them back into the fold? What about Mecca & Medina do they deserve to be Catholic for what the Muslims have 'done' to the Catholics? Where's the line?

As an atheist who has a great appreciation for learning history I’ve also been baffled by how often the crusades are portrayed as some unique evil among historical wars. Completely just ignoring the defensive nature of them and how Islamic expansion both pre and post dated them all