Were the Crusades Defensive? - A Response to Steven Crowder

hello history lovers it's your favorite mispronounce of words here and today we're going to talk about holy war and the Crusades in particular the Crusades are so fascinating a bunch of different ways and are ingrained into our culture like no other medieval event really be it an assassin's creed as a popular imagery among Internet dorks Batman being the Caped Crusader or whom amongst us can forget when foreign policy mastermind George Bush described military action involving numerous Muslim majority countries as a crusade yikes I've noticed that one of the most viewed videos if not the most viewed video on YouTube related to the Crusades is by steven crowder who you might remember from his hot tags on Adolf Hitler or his wee attempts at comedy the specific video were going to go over as titled debunked the Crusades myths which currently sits at close to 9 million views link is in the description check it out you know the drill in this video steven crowder will give us some brazen politically incorrect facts regarding the Crusades and some other historic events although they're not so much politically incorrect but rather just incorrect and if you're a previous view of mine history on YouTube not being portrayed in a nuanced manner as nothing new but with this video there is a slant and really a transparent hatred at play that it's honestly kind of breathtaking anyway let's go over this and at the end we'll talk a bit more about the Crusades in the context of more recent news [Music] this is important right now because he here this taught a lot it's taught across colleges it's taught on campus and it's taught in the media it's taught in the entertainment industry today whenever we're talking about the unspeakable acts committed in the name of Islam across the world in record numbers well what is it that we're inevitably told who say all right don't ever use that voice again but the Crusades as a matter of fact it's so commonly used here's a montage remember that during the Crusades in the Inquisition people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ why are only Muslims mentioned in talks about religious extremism did you all forget about the KKK Westboro Baptist Church Crusades the Muslims didn't go up from Jerusalem and March up to Europe to attack Christendom no the christians march down to Jerusalem to attack the Muslims the Crusades in the Inquisition he went to the big ones the ones where it's like everybody agrees whoa now without analyzing each of these segments for error Obama and others talk about the Crusades the reason why that point is brought up in the context of religious violence is that they are an example of violence performed in the name of Christendom Crowder will do his best to disconnect the Crusades from their component of religious fanaticism and solely present them as a military response perform because of Christian virtue without getting out of myself even if he would be able to demonstrate that what about the rest the Inquisition KKK or slavery are pretty valid examples of violence partially justified to be in the name of Christ but we'll get to that let's get through these these myths there's if you've been taught about the Crusades I'll call them the second Crusades the retaliatory Crusades I'll explain in a minute because it's important that they were unprovoked that it was just Christians running across the globe with pointy hats and swords killing any and all Muslims they could find innocent or not simply because they didn't like their brownness it couldn't be further from the truth it's important because this is taught in schools across the country a lot of people believe this the fact is that these Crusades the second Crusades they were a response - the first Crusades from Islam from the Muslim onslaught for hundreds of years for over 400 years or as consistent Muslim expansion aggression violence Muslims took Jerusalem in 638 ad they pillage Rome and 846 AD Christian Spain and Portugal and 711 ad sounds like a gas station but its historical context that you need to know that's why you tune in southern Italy during the 9th century the Ottoman Turks were advancing into Europe and invading the Byzantine Empire in I think I think it was 1010 50 1060 something ad the Turks were marching into Asia Syria and then the big one the big reason so if you look at this map and you can see it expanding was 1453 the capture the sacking of Constantinople which basically put an end to the Christian Byzantine Empire where to start okay first off when talking about the Crusades and their individual causes it's important to be at least somewhat specific on what you're talking about and the way crowdy presents his claim makes me question if he knows what the Crusades actually are because he seems to mix up some words here when regular people or scholars say the Crusades they usually mean the Crusades in their entirety or a singular crusade which is made up of multiple smaller Crusades contemporary historians usually put the number of call Crusades at 9 or called at different points in time for different reasons so there were nine Crusades although it is often subject to debate what exactly can be counted as a legit crusade and what cannot but for now keep in mind that the Crusades means all of them over hundreds of years not a specific one in addition to that there were also a couple of Crusades that are not numbered like the people's crusade or the Children's Crusade happening in between the numbered Crusades as you probably see this thing get very confusing but I'll try to make it clear what we are talking about so when steven crowder says he calls the crusades the second or retaliatory crusades what has that even supposed to mean the Second Crusade singular is very clearly defined as the crusade called an 11:40 for after the fall of Odessa but I assume steven crowder is talking about here is actually the first crusade when the Crusaders captured Jerusalem which he personally calls the second Crusades and this isn't just my usual pedantry at work here but the wards that steven crowder is using to make his argument make zero sense even within his narrative of the Crusades being a defensive operation against Muslim aggression and the reason for that is because classifying the Crusades as retaliatory against Muslims as steven crowder puts it would include things like the northern crusade of which muslims weren't even a part of in any way but which was called against Slavs finns and pagans in the Baltics well the Catholic Crusade where Crusaders committed a genocide against a Christian minority in southern Europe so right off the bat steven crowder argument completely collapses because he is unable to articulate what he is even trying to say but trying to be charitable for this video we'll stick with the First Crusade because that's usually what the argument is be that as it may calling the First Crusade the Second Crusade because it's supposedly a response to holy war waged by Muslims also doesn't make much sense a crusade is not the same thing as a jihad while a crusade had to be called for by the Pope jihad after its conception was understood to be an integral part of exercising the Muslim faith now you might say and I'm sure a lot of commentators well if Muslim doctrine preached that their faith had to be continuously spread when the Crusaders right in attacking them since a clash between the two was inevitable isn't this what this map perfectly shows no but we'll get to this map in a second the understanding of what a jihad is or should be was subject to a lot of debate by Muslim scholars over the passing centuries and when the 11th century rolled around so when the first crusade happened the age of expansionist jihad was largely considered to be over Mohammed was long dead at this point and the ongoing infighting in the Muslim world was a much bigger concern as the centuries passed the driving impulse towards expansion encoded in this classical theory of jihad was gradually eroded Arab tribesmen began to settle into more sedentary lifestyles and to trade with non-muslims such as the Byzantines holy war against the likes of Christians continued but they became far more sporadic and often were promoted and prosecuted by muslim amirs without Khalifa endorsement by the 11th century the rulers of Sunni Baghdad were far more interested in using jihad to promote Islamic orthodoxy by battling heretic Shiites than they were in launching holy wars against Christendom the suggestion that Islam should engage in an unending struggle to enlarge its border and subjugate non-muslims had little currency so too did the idea of unifying in defense of the Islamic faith and its territories so why the idea of jihad still existed to claim the Islamic world continuously waged war against Christendom for religious motivations in the eleventh century is just not true but if that's the case what does this map show it's taken from a lecture on YouTube titled Bill Warner PhD G hard versus Crusades which currently has about two million views what this map is supposed to show is how Muslims just kept pushing into Europe over hundreds of years and who a Christian said enough we're off crusading and on the surface it seems pretty convincing it's made by someone who holds a PhD and I have to admit these are a lot of dots the problem is that this entire map is almost complete hogwash but first who is Bill Warner you might know him from his appearance on the Rubin report or from his talk with stefan molyneux or from being on the literal white supremacist YouTube channel red eyes TV off to a good start there besides that you might also be shocked to find out that bill won a PhD does not actually have a PhD in history or theology it's a PhD in physics and mathematics but that doesn't keep him from portraying himself as an authority on Islam or medieval history and I'm not either just to be clear but you can look through the books in the description to see where I'm coming from be that as it may let's actually analyze this map first of why would you classify the expansion of Islam as the destruction of classical civilization it appears that Bill Warner and Crowder's see this conquest as what a group like Isis does today destroying the historic sites killing off forcibly converting non-muslims and so on but that's generally not how it happened in the time frame that we are talking about often prior and during the Middle Ages Muslims taking over territory just meant a change in government for lack of a better word that is in fact one of the reasons it had such an easy time spreading one reason why is expended so rapidly was that peoples of the book that is Christians and Jews were in recognition of the shared heritage of their faiths Christ for example as a prophet in Islam and as a prominent figure in the Quran treated with tolerance are not compelled to convert thus as long as these subject peoples known as Dimmie paid appropriate attacks they could continue to practice their religion and this in turn meant less resentment more assimilation and often eventually conversion another thing this map gets wrong is that just because a group of people share the same faith does not mean they can be classified as one group and although there's no explanation of what the green is supposed to be we can assume it's supposed to show territory under Muslim control the reason why that is misleading is because Muslims were constantly fighting other Muslims the seljuks what the Fatimids who fought the Arabs Sunnis fighting Shias and so on while Islam was bordering Christendom from Asia Minor all the way to the Iberian Peninsula to portray the entirety of Islam as a unified front and threat to all Christians leaves out that a United Muslim world didn't exist at the time and to pretend there was some kind of joint Muslim onslaught on Europe like this map implies shows a severe lack of understanding of the political realities of the age where Christians and Muslims did face each other across the centuries their relationship had been unremarkable or characterized like that between any potential rivals by periods of conflict and others of coexistence there's little or no evidence to suggest that either side how had any innate empowering religious or racial hatred of the other that said what prompted the First Crusade was mainly the conflict between the Orthodox Christian Byzantines and the Sunni Muslim Seljuk Turks but I'll talk about that in a minute anyhow the question remains what about all those dots and here I have to give a shout-out to the folks of on /rs historians and bad history who went through this map and detailed the problems with it in a very informative post which you can find in the description to give you the short version Bill Warner classifies every battle fought by Muslims as a jihad and a battle against classical civilization sometimes battles where Muslims were the ones defending themselves or even Muslims fighting other Muslims the perversity reaches its peak when bill Juana feisty Kosovo war which happened in the late 90s and during which the Muslim majority Albanians were ethnically cleansed from the region as a jihad not only that but he also includes the Bosnian war during which describe who needs a massacre cured where more than 8,000 Muslim Bosniaks between the ages of 13 and 78 were murdered in what the UN classifies as a genocide judging from the source he links in the description it seems like he took a Wikipedia list of battles in the Muslim world and just ended a dot on a map for each one and classified them as a jihad needless to say if you want to make the case that the First Crusade was a response to Islamic expansion this map is completely useless and also be worn as a hack but if this map doesn't show it why did the first crusade happen Before we jump into that you should know that the Crusades are a very contested field in history and different historians give different answers to this question as always I'll link my research material down below and you should do yourself the favor of checking out what the actual historians are saying rather than just taking my word for it also talking about the Crusades in a good or bad framing makes it very easy to view past events in an anachronistic manner just like Stephen Crowder's doing in this video so let's take a look at Europe and the Middle East on the eve of the First Crusade and for this segment I bore a doughnut eat ones projector so head on over to his channel and leave him a thank-you note in form of subscribing in the 11th century Europe and the Middle East are extremely fractured there's no United Christendom just as there's no United Muslim world pretty much everyone is fighting everyone constantly when it comes to Western Europe where most of the participants of the First Crusade came from it's a pretty chaotic time after the collapse of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century there was really no central authority which could provides a sense of stability and the region is plagued by constant infighting between counts or Knights or everyone else wanted to gain power by the way Knights in the context of the First Crusade are less chivalrous men in shining armor and more just relatively wealthy dudes who are able to swing a sword while riding a horse and these folks were pretty merciless in buland a lot of cases those stereotypical Knights came a bit later anyway one thing that at least somewhat unites this patchwork in Western Europe is Latin Christendom with its head figure pope urban ii and the pope has a bit of a problem on his hand specifically because western europe is so divided war and violence lead to sin which is generally bad news then Henry the fourth of Germany does something which gets him excommunicated further diminishing the church's influence and resulting in even more instability besides these guys there's also another Christian faction namely Byzantium also known as the eastern Roman Empire and things aren't going so great for them either the people they are having the most trouble with are the seljuq turks who steven crowler calls the ottoman turks although the house of Osman was established two hundred years after the first crusade anyway the Seljuk Turks crushed the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzi Akande 1071 and since then continuously pushed him out of Asia Minor besides the Turks the Byzantines are also constantly fighting off Slavic tribes and others wanting to take advantage of the situation often including Christians by the way because the Byzantines weren't Roman Catholic there were Greek Orthodox as the years past Islam and present him developed a tense sometimes crawl some respect for one another but their relationship was no more fraught with conflict than that between the Greeks and their Slavic or let neighbors to the west the Sunni Celtic talks are having similar problems not only fighting the Byzantines but also Shia Muslims like the Fatimids as I said everyone's pretty much fighting everyone be that as it may the Byzantines feel threatened by the Turks ooh yes we are Muslim but the conflict cannot be described as some kind of holy war but more as a regular struggle for power the reality was that when Pope Urban proclaimed the first Crusader Claremore Islam and Christendom had coexisted for centuries in relative equanimity there may at times have been little love lost between Christian and Muslim neighbors but there was in truth little to distinguish this enmity from the endemic political and military struggles of the age brushing that aside Byzantium is in hot water so they look for help and why the Orthodox Christians were nowhere best friends or even allied with the Christians of Western Europe their relationship had been improving over the last couple of years so that's why they asked for help important to note here is that the emperor of byzantium who was named Alexius didn't call for a holy of any of the sort he just sent a request for some military aid to the earlier mentioned pope urban ii as he had been doing a couple of times previously and most likely that's what he expected you know some mercenaries he can easily incorporate into the Byzantine force to fill the gaps what he got was much different and here's where we jump back to our friend pope urban ii who receives the n way from Byzantium and used this to kick off the first crusade with his speech at Claremore now what he actually said in that speech is a bit how to determine since the five accounts that exist of it were all written years later but you'll get the gist of it erase absolutely alien to God has invaded the land of Christians has reduced the people with sward rapine and flame these men have destroyed the LTS polluted with their foul practices they have circumcised the Christians either spreading the blood from the circumcision on the outers or pouring it into the baptismal fonts and they cut open the navels of those whom they choose to torment with lo some death killed their most vital organs and tie them to the stake drag them around and flog them before killing them SLI thrown on the ground with all their entrails out what shall I say of the appalling violation of women of which it is more evil to speak than to keep silent on whom therefore does the test lie of avenging this of redeeming the situation if not on you upon whom above all nations God has bestowed outstanding glory and arms magnitude of heart Livan is of body and strength to humble anyone who resists you sadly will never know his exact thoughts since much of his writings were lost in a fire but by analyzing the situation we can get a good idea of why he turned present his requests into the monumental undertaking that the first crusade ended up being for instance the horrific violence committed by Muslims most like this work of fiction or at least did not happen on a systematic scale most significantly throughout this period indigenous Christians actually living under Islamic law beat in Iberia or the Holy Land were generally treated with remarkable clemency the Muslim faith acknowledged and respected Judaism and Christianity creeds with which it enjoyed a common devotional tradition and a mutual relies upon authoritative Scripture Christian subjects may not have been able to share power with their Muslim masters but they were given freedom to worship all around the Mediterranean base Christian faith and society survived and even flourished under the watchful baturin die of Islam Eastern Christendom may have been subject to Islamic rule but it was not on the brink of annihilation nor prey to any form of systematic abuse now surely being reduced to second-class citizenship or paying special taxes just for being Christian is pretty outrageous treatment by our modern-day standards but at the time it was a pretty good deal compared to what religious minorities face and large parts of Western Europe of course the even crowd ignores her later in the video but that was to be expected wasn't it historian Jonathan Phillips puts it this way pope urban ii address at Claremore used highly inflammatory images to provoke moral outrage in his audience the muslims were described in language that emphasized their other nurse and their barbarity towards in his in questions in reality while it's true that pilgrims were occasionally maltreated it was also the case that there had been no systematic persecution of Christians by the Muslims in the Holy Land for decades that said general statements like this one are really just that general statements episodic violence towards Christians did a cure and after the Seljuk Turks is the Holy Land Christian pilgrims reported that they had it a lot harder than before be that as it may in his speech urban is grossly exaggerating and most likely has no idea how Christians were living under Islamic rule also noteworthy here is that what a lot of Christians welcome to Crusaders when they arrived in Asia Minor and the Middle East the Crusaders often treated some local Christians no different from the Muslims since most of them were Coptic and not Catholic but what about the Holy Land besides crowd our urban the second also specifically spoke about Jerusalem and the need to take it back for Christendom this Royal City however situated at the center of the earth is now held captive by the enemies of Christ and is subjected by those who do not know God to the worship the heathen she seeks therefore and desires to be liberated and ceases not to employ you to come to aid the from with implying the sec of jerusalem triggered the first crusade is that this happened over 400 years prior to it being called per urban ii so this was such a big concern they really took that time to react to it and without going through Urban's entire speech let me just say this the main reasons urban turned a call for military aid into a call for holy war i internal a crusade which had authority the Pope would be put in as military force under influence of the papacy it also served as a vehicle to reduce the constant infighting in Western Europe and United Party of the continent under common cause it also allowed him to foster better relations between latin and orthodox christened em the roms addressed by the first crusade Muslim occupation of Jerusalem and the potential threat of Islamic aggression in the East had loomed for decades even centuries for walking little or no reaction in Rome Rubens decision to take up this cause at Claremore was therefore primarily proactive rather than reactive and the crusade was designed first and foremost to meet the needs of the papacy launched as it was just as open began to stabilize his power base in central Italy the campaign must be seen as an attempt to consolidate papal empowerment and to expand Rome sphere of influence it was no accident that urban chose to unleash the concept of crusading and France a region which his roots gave him connections and local knowledge and over which the papacy had long wished to strengthen its hold indeed the crusade was just one of the weapons used in the pursuit of this agenda of its entire grant to of France in 1095 1096 being a transparent attempt to manifest papal Authority now that doesn't mean that urban ii had no interest in helping the Byzantines all bring the Holy Land on a Christian control but it shows that the causes for the First Crusade aren't one-dimensional or can be entirely traced back to the actions of one group after showing the oneness map and making this big point of how Muslims were going after Europe steven crowder will now move on to say that he actually doesn't blame Muslims for expanding because that was just the nature of the times which I really don't buy in krottas sources the very first one is intended to show the Crusaders acting in self-defense the whole point of the map and phrasing the First Crusade as the second retaliatory crusade heavily leads the audience to that conclusion why even make the argument if it supposedly doesn't speak to the point of the video let's listen to what Steven Crowder's actual problem is and here's the thing I understand military expansion okay so I'm not going to condemn the Islamic world for doing this back then okay now right away that should change the context to the Crusades because people war and people go back and gain territory and win but the sheer brutality from Islam for example they deliberately desecrated the burial sites of Peter and Paul in 846 of me exactly these are military terms you need not concern yourself with they would behead people as we see today they had methods of torture that were incredibly brutal the dhimmitude meaning they were putting they would force non-muslims to be subservient and pay taxes and they didn't get to enjoy the same kind of rights as Muslim got to to enjoy so regarding the sheer brutality of Islam specifically not individual Muslim factions as Steven crowler says very telling choice of words anyway it's true that Muslims read the outskirts of the city of Rome and 846 which again happened 250 years before the First Crusade so I really failed to see the connection there also the Raiders in this instance were Arabs and not Turks besides that when Stephen Fowler says they deliberately desecrated the burial sites of Saint Peter and Paul what he means is they looted the basilica's where they were buried and it's not like their main motivation was just screwing up the graves of two saints who they probably knew nothing about but many of the treasures that these basilica's offered now you might still say that somewhat of a dick move but nothing out of the ordinary in those times prior to the first Crusader church being looted by a group of supposedly Christian Knights was far from unheard of for instance in a document in which the castle and novello of flava tal explains why he's joining the First Crusade he writes this whenever the imports of war like fierceness roust me I would gather about myself a band of mounted men and a crowd of followers I would descend upon the village and freely give the goods of the men of sample a of Kshatriya to my Knights for food now therefore I'm going as a paragon to Jerusalem which is still in bondage with her sons to secure the divine pardon that I seek for my misdeeds looting churches nothing out of the ordinary in those times and certainly not a staple of Muslims acting exceptionally brutal on war the next thing Crowder brings up is Muslims beheading people and although crota doesn't cite a source for that I'm more than sure that there were Muslims who decapitated people in the Middle Ages but again this doesn't speak to crowd ohs argument of Muslims acting distinctively brutal from everyone else at the time this period didn't used to be called the Dark Ages because of all the Knights jokes aside the term Dark Ages is actually very misleading and Eurocentric decapitation was practiced for thousands of years before Islam even made its way into the world stage the word in itself shares its route with the word capital as in capital punishment because people got their heads chopped off for millennia be it a nation Greece or Rome or in Japan same goes for torture the reason crowdy even brings his up is so that he can force a historical parallel where it really doesn't make sense here's an example after winning a major battle during the First Crusade the Crusaders decapitated more than 100 Muslim dead doctor hats upon spears and gleefully paraded them before the wards of Antioch which they was seeking now if I would want to make the case for the brutality of Christianity for instance I could point to the Vietnam War and specifically the tiger force who were Christians and also allegedly decapitated numerous civilians including an infant or even more fitting I could point to the photos obtained by the Rolling Stone in 2011 which showed Christians in Afghanistan a majority Muslim country maneuvering a severed head on a stick just to be clear here I don't think the actions of the Crusaders at Antioch are in any way related to the atrocities committed by US forces in Afghanistan but falling Stephen Crowder's logic they are both expressions of Christianity's inherent brutality and the point in bringing this up for me is not to do a little tit for tat yeah Isis behad's people but US forces do two things the actions of Islamic extremists deserve condemnation but Stephen cratis false connection between medieval and modern day events does not stand up to scrutiny that said the reason why he says what he says will become a lot more obvious later in the video something we don't mention amongst our white guilt millions millions some people estimate higher than a hundred million died under the Arab slave trade we have courses that were forced to take here in the United States to learn about the evils of slavery that we stopped or are they teaching those anywhere across the Islamic world is there is there is LA McGill to checking your Islamic privilege a thing now I have to admit that I am not too familiar with the history curriculum for every majority Muslim country on earth but I'm sure they don't talk much about the Arab slave right in Saudi Arabia or the Emirates be that as it may the real question for me is that's the bar the bar for steven crowder when it comes to the u.s. approach to education is a country like Saudi Arabia wanna compare yourself to other Western democracies like France or Germany why pick a theocratic monarchy as your comparison although it makes sense given that steven crowder if he was able to get over his disdain for Muslims would fit perfectly into a very conservative Muslim majority country so unless crowdy wants the u.s. to be more like Saudi Arabia I don't see the point in bringing that up let's move on so this kind of brutality is kind of inhumane treatment and yes military expansion and cultural expansion is what led to the retaliatory Crusades people like Vlad the Impaler you've probably heard of you know Vlad the Impaler coming known as Dracula believed Dracula it's how he's Mia Vlad the Impaler was an actual person some sucked a little bit of a sadist I'll give that to you Vlad the Impaler became really brutal precisely because it was a prisoner and saw the inhumane treatment saw the brutality from the Islamic empire that's why scene as a folk hero to some now I would say he went a little too far the other direction with impaling people and allegedly drinking blood he found the line he found the line but good friend he found it you find it in the giant ants back but they heard the message loud and clear he was one of the few people who fought them off he was using Verizon back then while everyone else was on Sprint they got the message was a head they were Vlad incur no roaming charges okay so when it comes to Vlad the Impaler firstly it's important to keep in mind that when in prison Vlad was not held in solitary confinement for 40 years being tortured Count of Monte Cristo style he and his brother stayed with the Ottomans as a guarantee for their father's loyalty but you know that could still mean that's why he got so brutal but I would trust Stephen Crowder sauce on this one rather than Crowder himself on his website he links to an article from LiveScience calm and here's what they write about flood stay with the Ottomans during their captivity Rudd and his brother were tutored and science philosophy and arts they were also allegedly schooled in the art of war receiving lessons in both horsemanship and sportsmanship from the Ottoman captors according to Haru Flores sue and Raymond McNally from a professor of history at Boston College who wrote several books about third some historians have argued that Vlad also learnt the art of impalement during his time as a hostage but that can be proved according to Florin quota a professor of medieval history and archeology at the University of Florida the Ottomans didn't invent impalement and there's no way of knowing whether Vlad saw them deployed this gruesome punishment on their prisoners regardless of what he learned from his captors Vlad didn't take any to being held prisoner on the contrary his kid brother adjusted well to captivity forging a friendship with the Sultan's son mehmet ii and eventually converting to islam although i should mention that it's very contested if Lutz brother Harun actually converted to Islam but at least he voluntarily stayed with the Ottomans eventually having them to chase his brother out of Romania anyway keep this little vowed digression in mind because we'll come back to it later so all of this is what led to the Pope putting forward the idea of a Christian crusade for the first time that kind of gave license to killing people who weren't Christians because they were facing the extinction potentially what they thought of their culture of their way of life to who they saw to be barbarians at that point sorry have to chime in here but this is probably my favorite part in crowd this video we already talked about how Christianity was not facing any kind of existential threat at the time but the reason I'm stuck in here specifically is the painting on screen when crowdy says the word barbarians maybe you remember when I said earlier that an order for krottas argument to make any sense you basically have to pretend all the Crusades targeted at non-muslims didn't happen well this is an example of failing at that let's do some analysis on what's shown here we have a burning city in the background a lady lying dead on the floor this person throwing up one last step before presumably being killed and near the center an older man begging for the life of his wife and small kid in front of a group of knights surely not a happy occasion going on here this painting is called the entry of the Crusaders in Constantinople by eugène delacroix it shows the culmination of the Fourth Crusade where the Crusaders turned on they're supposed allies and sacked the capital of Orthodox Christian 'dom not only did they plundered the city but also raped and murdered numerous inhabitants and what followed was a fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire which irrevocably weakened it until it was taken by the Ottomans in 1453 so good job there Steven made my point for me and this wasn't even the first time a crusader declared war on the Byzantines in 1107 beau Hemant of Toronto who became king of Antioch after the Crusaders took it launched a campaign against the Byzantine Empire declaring its Orthodox Christian Emperor Alexius an enemy of Christ but at least this time the Byzantines were able to cut off the attackers supply and the campaign proved to be a shambolic disaster really doing a bad job defending Christendom there though let's move on and it's important remember the Crusades the retaliatory Crusades from the Christians at that time met the criteria of the Just War clause so when Stephen Crowder talks about the Just War clause he makes it look like it's part of some sort of medieval Geneva Convention ratified by a medieval version of the UN just war is a theory of Gunung ethics in wartime and it changes meaning depending on when and where it's invoked but for the Crusades it's a bit more complicated than crowdy makes it out to be after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire the Catholic Church had a bit of a problem on its hands how do you expand militarily and defend your territories if your holy book preaches pacifism and guarantees you take it straight to hell for murdering someone well prior to the Crusades numerous Christian scholars exempt attacks and thought maybe thou shalt not kill and love your neighbor can become kill your neighbor if the church says so and this is where the idea of just war in the context of the Crusades makes its way into the story connecting the idea of fighting a just war with a pilgrimage to Jerusalem a lot the church to sell the First Crusade as a campaign of sanctified violence that was not only okay but deserved a reward in this case the absolution from all sin so it's not like the Crusaders appealed to some kind of universal human rights Charter but were told to be acting within the rules that Church set up for them so that they could go on killing without questioning if the actions are actually compatible with their religion see this is why these videos have to be so long and takes so long to make sure Allah takes 10 seconds to make a claim and the explanation why what he says is gibberish takes several minutes but even leaving out this context it's not like the Crusaders even acted within those rules for instance the web site crowd are links to says one of the Just War principles is the violence Houston war must be proportional to the injury suffered and we can find countless a samples even within the First Crusade where the Crusaders went really out-of-bounds on this world specifically for instance during the siege of Navarre where the Crusaders managed to strike an agreement with the forces and civilians remaining in the garrison guaranteeing them safe passage if they surrendered after the Saracens agreed to this deal and surrendered the Crusaders massacred them anyway only to discover that the food stocks were already empty what happened after is detailed in The Chronicles of Folger of Chartres who wrote I shudder to tell you that many of our people harassed by the madness of excessive hunger cut pieces from the buttocks of the Saracens already dead there which they cooked but when it was not yet roasted enough by the fire they devoured it with savage mouths although these are the Middle Ages eating your dead opponents was generally considered to be out of what was acceptable and maybe you just saw that the last principal on that list talks about killing non-combatants but we'll talk about the sec of Jerusalem in a couple of minutes they were thought of as an act of love in response to Muslim aggression historically they met the criteria that was necessary okay the act of loving this one is actually true although I doubt Stephen cotton knows what he's saying here presenting a crusade which meant killing people as an act of love was a to for the Catholic Church to convince people that this violent ordeal was a morally righteous thing to do similar to how the concept of Just War was used the historian who detailed the use of love in regards to gathering support for the Crusades was J Reilly Smith and here's what else he wrote in his paper crusading as an act of love now the striking thing about these references to love is that they are one-dimensional and therefore not truly Christian love of neighbor was always treated in crusade propaganda in terms of fraternal love for fellow Christians never in terms of love shown for enemies as well as friends and this one side of view of love did not properly reflect risks from teaching in the past or at the time it is not believable that the Pope's who proclaimed Crusades and the more respectable preachers who whipped up enthusiasm for them did not grasp the complexity of the Christian position they must have presented their one-sided version of love deliberately with a view to the audience they were addressing in other words presenting a crusade as an act of love was deliberate propaganda by the church be that as it may reilly smith wrote this paper in 1980 and since then a lot of work was published analyzing the idea of christian love in the context of the crusades one notable addition for us would be by Susanna through in her book crusading as an act of vengeance Raleigh Smith has shown that to sacrifice one's own life for a fellow Christian on a crusade was perceived as an act of love leading some to view the desire to display Christian love as a motivating factor that drove people to go on a crusade perhaps for some to take vengeance for an unjust death was also perceived as an act of love in the right context and thereby led some to viewed the desire to take vengeance as another aspect of the desire to display Christian love from this perspective both vengeance and self-sacrifice could coexist another broader banner of Christian love this suggests that at least for some to take vengeance and to display Christian love were not necessarily mutually exclusive or contradictory principles and both contributed to the ideology of the crusading movement the reason why I bring this up is because on the one hand Steven Carla tries to present the First Crusade as military and strictly defensive action on the other hand he points towards the positive aspects of Christianity like love if it makes the Crusaders look good one thing that shows how deeply violent religious fanaticism was part of the First Crusade is the fact that the first victims weren't even Muslims there were Jews shortly before the first real crusading army marched off a smaller group named the people's crusade led by Peter the Hermit attempted to make their way towards the Holy Land now Peter the Hermit had spent a lot of time riling people up telling them how horrible Muslims are and how all enemies of Christ need to be slain sort of the stefan molyneux of his era really in their frenzy they slaughtered thousands of Jewish men women and children along the Rhine River because they were seen as the enemy of Christ who needed to be avenged hardly any self-defense or retaliation going on here after that the people's crusade marched on burning and plundering the city of Belgrade on their way and then they got crushed by the Turks shortly after entering Asia Minor with most of the men being put to the sward and the accompanying woman and children being sold into slavery so really something for the epic fail compilation they're on to the next clip you probably didn't have you learned this in college where they talked about when Christians took Jerusalem in 1099 I should say took back Jerusalem yeah which is really what they wanted to do they'll teach you crow when Christians took Jerusalem in 1099 no when they took back Jerusalem this video is already way too long so I have to rush some things I can't speak the entire American education system or what they whoever that is teaches but this is really just crowd us attempt to make the education system lock bias without having to present any actual evidence and this won't be the only instance of that in the video the reason why it's not really that important that Jerusalem was under Byzantine rule previously is that the time spent between Byzantium losing Jerusalem and the Crusaders taking it is almost 500 years and not only had Jerusalem changed hands several times since then but the Crusaders didn't even give it back to the Byzantines they kept it for themselves and set up an independent kingdom breaking there off previously given to Emperor Alexius to return the conquered territory to the Byzantines so it's really more taking rather than taking back kind of like when people talk about the war of 67 when Israel gained a territory they don't talk about how many countries was at Egypt Jordan I'm gonna remember the third one we're saying you're teaming up to eviscerate them in Israel just happen to kick their asses and took their land for protection it's it's left out so again I have no idea who this imaginary day is that Stephen crowd is arguing with in his head but let's just take up the argument real quick without digressing too much when it comes to the territory that Israel is currently occupying like the Golan Heights the fact that Israel was acting in self-defense or attacked preemptively in 1967 doesn't really matter under international law you can't just take land by conquests even when acting in self-defense now if my comments section wasn't horrible enough after talking about the Crusades and wars in the Balkans I think picking up this topic should do it so let's move on quickly so when Christians took back in 1099 you've heard this term right that the their siege of Jerusalem blood they had blood up to their knees you might have heard it's a term from the land a lot even he's so much of that Bill Clinton said this after 9/11 mind you the context matters in trying to be sympathetic and show his tolerance and how progressive he was to the terrorists and terrorist supported across the Islamic world Bill Clinton had this to say those of us who come from various European lineages Bill Clinton yeah I try that are not blameless indeed in the First Crusade when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem they first buried a synagogue with 300 Jews and was gonna say that's yes that's an unnecessarily dark to do it in the Bill Clinton voice and proceeded to kill Muslim women Muslim children at the Temple Mount I want to get down to the part where he said description of the event describes soldiers walking on the Temple Mount a holy place to Christians with blood running up to their knees the common term he reiterated it I can tell you that that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it right after 9/11 first off that's physically impossible for blood to be up to your knees of course and by the way it may sound like we're trying to take something literally that they meant figuratively no no no they will teach this in college literally and Bill Clinton meant it literally I'm really amazed that crowd acclaims Brooklyn meant the Crusaders having blood up to their knees literally when only a few seconds ago here at his exact words being the contemporaneous description of the events described and that is what is being taught in colleges a course in medieval history or the Crusades specifically doesn't work like a test from Prager University with events like these were forced to go by eyewitness account and the one claimed the Crusaders had blood up to their knees came from Raymond of aqueous a gorilla's whatever but there are also others describing the Crusaders having blood up to their ankles or to the knees of their horses judging from the varying accounts we can only really conclude one thing after the massacre of woman children and men who had taken refuge in the al-aqsa mosque during the siege there was a lot of blood so much that multiple people detailing the slaughter found it necessary to point it out the al-aqsa mosque is quite big though so the Crusaders having blood up to their knees is rather unlikely but again this is just one eyewitness accounts by no means taking as gospel and all of Education hardly any myths being busted here Steve widen cough pointed out this is not only a physically incapable but corrected the record regarding the Jerusalem battle standard practice at the time dictated that a city that refused to surrender at the site of a seating army would suffer and in all consequences of a successful siege this is why many cities back then agree to terms before commencement of this siege it doesn't mean all Muslims did that they didn't necessarily follow the rules of war as we've seen now they didn't really follow any civil rules of engagement the point is 11th century warfare was was harsh this shouldn't be a surprise yes the retaliatory Christian Crusaders did kill many inhabitants but the events are not out of the ordinary so first off Steve widen Cobb who wrote this piece for the catholic website krodha uses as his main source did not correct the record besides other historians regarding the blood up to their knees thing and thomas f man specifically who wrote a whole paper on the improbability of that claim be that as it may when we talk about the sack of jerusalem by the crusaders keeping in mind the historic fee of the first crusade is really important during the 20th century and the 60s and 70s specifically the Crusades were often looked at as being an early instance of colonialism and judged through that lens but now we know that's not really an accurate description more modern historians like Thomas assuage go out of their way to tackle some of the earlier misconceptions also regarding the siege of Jerusalem for instance while earlier Arab and Syrian sources put the number of kill during the siege at between 30,000 and 70,000 more recent Hebrew discoveries put the number closer to 3,000 and from that we can assume that early accounts were exaggerated but this isn't any kind of white guilt myth being busted by non PC historians with new evidence our understanding of historical events changes over time and the Crusades are no exception to this and while second city was hugely pretty brutal numerous eyewitness accounts detailed behavior on part of the Crusaders which exceeds what was part for the course most of the Franks natsot Crusaders were in no mood to take prisoners instead three years of strife privation and yearning coalesced to fuel a rampaging torrent of barbaric and indiscriminate slaughter one Crusader joyfully reported with the fall of Jerusalem and its towers one could see marvellous work some pagans were mercifully beheaded others pierced by arrows plunged from towers and yet others tortured for a long time were burned to death in searing flames piles of heads hands and feet lay in the houses and streets and men at nights were running to and from over corpses so gruesome was the carnage that according to one Latin even the soldiers who were carrying out the killing could hardly bear the vapors rising from the warm blood other Crusaders ranged through the city at will slaughtering men women and children both Muslims and Jews all the while engaging in rapacious looting mean the Latin or Arabic sources shy away from recording the dreadful horror of the sack the one side glorifying in victory the other appalled by its Ross Cemetery in the next paragraph a switch talks about the most likely in fetid death count of the siege but even taking this recent discovery into consideration he concludes it like this this suggests that even in the Middle Ages image of Crusaders brutality in 1099 was subject to hyperbole and manipulation on both sides of the divide even so we must still acknowledge the terrible inhumanity of the Crusader sadistic butchery and it's really telling how Steven crota classifies these events as not being out of the ordinary but completely disregards the notion of historical context when it comes to anything reprehensible done by Muslims next Club and modern accounts like Bill Clinton when they throw it out there there used to stir up backlash against the West they're the ones who are stirring the backlash up against us here in the Western world they're the ones who are encouraging people in the Islamic world to use it as an excuse because the Crusades were largely forgotten and they weren't used as justification for Isis for Taliban for take your pick the myth crowd us trying to debunk he is one that he mentioned earlier in the video another one that we hear a lot in that context matters is that the Crusades are some sort of a source of modern Muslim aggression or angst toward the West and apparently it's former president of the United States Bill Clinton who invokes two parallels to the Crusades in the first place and not people in the Middle East but the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle it is true that the Crusades didn't take up a lot of space in the Muslims view of their history up until the conception of the term crusade hundreds of years later these campaigns were just described as the Frankish wars in Muslim texts most likely they weren't even aware of the religious basis for the Crusades but thought they were Byzantine mercenaries so why does Bill Clinton mention them well certainly not because of white guilt I can tell you that much he picks them because it's a convenient way for him to explain away the animosity a lot of people in the Middle East have towards the United States here's what he could have said instead maybe instead of the Crusades it's actually our more recent actions that we should take a look at maybe things like destroying the Al Shifa medical plan that i bill clinton personally ordered and that was producing medicine for more than 100,000 patients play a role in this maybe we should have checked first if there's actually any evidence that this plant was producing chemical weapons before eviscerating in one of only three medium-sized pharmaceutical factories in Sudan you know maybe stuff like this causes hostility over there not events from over 900 years ago but you know that said he's somewhat has a point in what he's saying about the Crusades just like steven crowder is using the Crusades to spread Islamophobia they are also used by Islamic extremists this is taken from Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer prize-winning book the looming tower al-qaeda and the road to 9/11 describing Berlin's world view history moved in long slow waves he believed and this contest had been going on continuously since the founding of Islam this battle is not between al-qaeda and the u.s. bin Laden would later explain this is a battle of Muslims against the global Crusaders it was a theological war in other words and the redemption of humanity was at stake he then turned to the galling presence of American troops in the kingdom it is unconscionable to let the country become an American with American soldiers their filthy feet roaming everywhere for no reason other than protecting your throne and protecting oil sources for their own use he wrote these filthy infidel Crusaders must not be allowed to remain in the Holy Land so there you go often the truth lies somewhere in the middle the Crusades are a tool for Islamic extremists to say look thousands of years ago Christians invaded our lands and killed our people just like they're doing it now how can you not see that these people are obviously barbarians who will never stop maybe that line of argumentation sounds familiar okay we're getting closer at the end here and we're also approaching mask off time for steven crowder let's address a point he makes later in the video first and then we'll listen to crota tell us the motivation behind his video whenever religious islam has been given the opportunity to to to congregate given a petri dish in contrast to the rest of the modern world to the rest of Western civilization Europe the United States the Islamic world when given the opportunity to civilize when given more time doesn't get better doesn't make progress it all it always gets worse it gets worse and that's what was happening before the Crusades because of the Islamic Crusades and that would have occurred across the entire world it's not one of those this you left us like to act sometimes I'll use this argument right that's well Christians have come a long way if you go back to the Crusades they were pretty uncivil and some members of Islam are just enough it's like that phase for them or they need to get beyond it no Christians before the Crusades did become much more civilized were advancing into the new world then because of Islamic onslaught and behavior they had to get down the dirt the Crusades occurred and they continued to make progress so really quick regarding Christians being all civilized and then being forced to get down in the dirt and then being civilized again the only I mentioned Inquisition happened long after the first Crusades so did the height of witch hunting while Muslims somehow had fought for that too besides that anyone who is somewhat familiar with how the knowledge we hold so dear today made its way into our times knows what an insane statement it is to pretend the Christian world will somehow more civilized and advanced than the Islamic world around the Middle Ages what used to be described as the Dark Ages largely overlaps with what is called the Islamic Golden Age in which the Muslim world made incredible scientific and cultural advances Baghdad at the height of this had roughly 500 thousand inhabitants while Paris had about 20,000 scholars were constantly translating and culminating knowledge in Baghdad's famous House of Wisdom until it was destroyed by the Mongols in 1258 steven crowder is just pulling this out of thin air and can't even be bothered to dig up some anti-lgbt catholic website as a source like he did for his other claims from the 8th century to the end of the 14th arabic science was probably the most advanced science in the world greatly surpassing the West and China in virtually every field of endeavor in astronomy alchemy mathematics medicine optics and so forth Arabic scientists that is Middle Eastern individuals primarily using the Arabic language but including Arabs Iranians Christians Jews and others were in the forefront of scientific advance the facts theories and scientific speculations contain India treatises were the most advanced to be had anywhere in the world including China so much for that now let's watch steven crowder lay bare his extra motivation for talking about the Crusades and here's something I would like to put forward you know what not only is it understandable now given this context that the Crusades occurred the Crusades were necessary they had to happen I'm not condoning the loss or the the taking of innocent life deliberately but the Crusades as a military and cultural response needed to happen because they happen precisely to stop the kind of barbaric behavior that you see in the Islamic world today and you saw up until today in any other place where the Islamic empires were able to conquer let's talk about the Armenian Genocide where where thousands upon thousands of people were killed brutally including the crucifixion of young girls downtow jank I still don't know how Ana Kasparian sits next to him let's just don't talk about it it only gets them mad in the 1800 Sunni Muslims killed over 4,000 mostly civilians in the city of she beheading their king they still behead in the Islamic world you've seen these headlines this still occurs all across the Islamic world I'm not only talking about Isis but in places like Saudi Arabia in some of these places in the islamic world that actually have modern technology you would consider them here in the new world beheadings occur in soccer stadiums as a warm-up act we get Beyonce's nipple they get a head rolling around being kicked for a goal I'm just saying that the reason the Crusades occurred were to stop the kind of behavior that shocked you every single day when you read the news from the Islamic world because guess what that was going to be the entire world now I can't be bothered to talk about every single claim in there because this video is already too long but here's the big question why does steven crowder talk about Isis or 9/11 why is he bringing up the Armenian genocide which happened during the first world war of Vlad the Impaler initially this video was supposed to be about the Crusades if I remember correctly and there are multiple reasons why he digress is so often one is the way people like crowder Steve Bannon or ben shapiro see the muslim world they're viewed as a nepal force what they call the judeo-christian West our enemy in the clash of civilizations if you will and this is pretty much in line with how the modern American right seems to view it as well all the way to the President of the United States and if you view history and the world through that lens bring up the Armenian Genocide in the same breath as two crusades makes complete sense they are both events in the continuous historic structure between the west and Islam it's also why krodha makes a specific mistake twice in this video first he ignores the different factions in the Muslim and Christian world prior and during the Crusades and then later he does it again betraying the most regressive and brutal Muslim country Saudi Arabia has been representative of 1.6 billion Muslims the nuance of rivaling factions and influences that are distinct from religion are completely lost on him they are Christians and they are Muslims that's about as clear-cut as it gets for crowdy and without going back to what I explained earlier we can even look at current geopolitical realities which show this Clash of Civilizations lens not being based on any kind of fact they just mentioned Saudi Arabia which is probably the worst Muslim theocracy you can pick is one of the biggest allies of the majority Christian the United States no clash between Christianity and Islam there they are even working together hand in hand to butcher innocent civilians in Yemen with Trump even vetoing a resolution that would have entered the involvement of the US military recently another reason why this video even exists and resonates so much becomes pretty obvious if you think about what its goal is and it's definitely not the viewer walking away having gained a better understanding of the Crusades the real takeaway from this video is that Muslims then it now are violent savages that only conjure a brutality everywhere they are so there's no reason to feel attacked in your white Christian identity when Obama or someone else brings them up as an example of religiously motivated violence we only did what had to be done Stephen crawler doesn't give a damn about the historical record of a medieval event the Crusades are mostly a vehicle for him and this is really the idea behind the rights could obsession with the Crusades recently a local chapter of Germany's far-right AFD party shed an image calling for a voting crusade a bit before that on the day of Shia bordows inauguration as president of Brazil Felipe Martin's a political blogger close to the bolts in our family tweeted his personal celebration of bolts and arrows victory with the words the new order is here everything is ours Dale's fault Dale's wall being Latin for God wields it and the Crusader battle cry which they allegedly shouted at the end of Pope Urban speech at Claremore the same words can currently be found on the banner of the neo-nazi website the daily storm ah with the Crusader next to them and they already countless examples of this usually popping up whenever an Islamic extremist commits a terrorist attack or when an event gets blamed on one like the reason not for dam fire invoking the Crusades is a somewhat safe way to meme about the wish for violence committed against Muslims tweeting I think we should cleanse Muslims from society is most likely going to get you banned from social media what simply tweeting hashtag Deus vult probably won't and of course that doesn't mean that anyone enjoying Crusader Kings to memes is a crypto Islamophobe but if you think there aren't a lot of people with genuine hatred towards Muslims who used to sense a more socially acceptable way of voicing their feelings you're killing yourself for the far right the crusade serve as a narrative of the West having enough of being aggressed upon by brown people and this provides extremists with the perfect template to justify their hostility towards Muslims today the perpetrator of the OU Toya massacre wrote extensively about how the Crusades were defensive and how there was desperate need for a new one in his manifesto more recently when I watched a news report about the Christchurch shooting I saw this picture now it's kind of hard to see but below Vienna 1683 the shooter wrote a cur 1198 which most likely refers to the counter-attack by the king of jerusalem against the forces of Saladin in what would later be known as the Third Crusade further in his manifesto he copied parts of pope urban ii speech at Claremore detailing how horribly Christians were suffering at the hands of Muslims and concluded with the sentence ask yourself what would pope urban ii do here is how stefan molyneux starts out his video titled the truth about the crusades which currently sits at over 1 million views wouldn't be great if when society faced a real crisis it could just shine out the big h flashlights the searchlight we need a historian we need a historian out here to give us some perspective well of course there are a lot of Middle Eastern people on the move of course majority of them Muslims this is not the FIR time in history this has happened I'm not saying this is exactly the same as the past but those who do not understand the past are condemned to repeat it now Molyneux is a bit more upfront about his motivations but Crowder's and his largely overlap the actual reasoning behind connecting the crusades with modern-day Islam or immigration from the Muslim world are much more sinister than wanting to learn from history people even bigoted people don't like to think of themselves as the aggressor nobody likes to be the one who threw the first stone and since Islam is not a threat to the West's and any large-scale capacity they have to pretend that they are already being aggressed upon by either the Muslim world or Muslim immigrants and what can be done about it well of course nobody would suggest violence but how about we talk a bit about the Crusades and how they quote had to happen below crotas lists of sources for his video on the Crusades he specifically links to another video in which he claims moderate Islam doesn't even exist and is a myth as well and just to be clear I don't think steven crowder wants people to shoot up mosques but you know ask yourself accepting all his premises what is the conclusion if you already bought into the idea that Islam is replacing your culture and way of life in all fairness I should mention that after the New Zealand shooting steven crowder recorded a video wanted to let everyone know that his thoughts are with the people he demonized for years and also encouraged people to read the shooters manifesto and discover that this has nothing at all to do with conservatism and maybe I could see an argument there but not if steven crowder is making it even if you are conservative and for small government guns rights and all that stuff things like this should be disgusting to you invoking the Crusades to demonize Muslims throughout history and use every chance you get to excuse or downplay violence committed against them while also constantly [ __ ] on Muslims in 2019 is about as openness one can be in terms of how he thinks Muslims should be treated I think you can critique Islam or how it hinders societies to progress on social issues without being an Islamophobe I even think you can make a case for the First Crusade being caused by the growing power of the Seljuk Turks absolutely but people like Crowder and Molyneux are not making these arguments the Crusades for them only serve as a Trojan horse to push their bigoted misinformed use onto an audience under the Vinaya of speaking to to power and while on the topic of people like Crowder who portray history in a way that makes Islam and Christianity out to be locked in a constant clash and unable to coexist peacefully I'll leave you with this maybe you remember the chap from earlier who witnessed the Crusaders eating their dead enemies of the siege of Maha well he stayed in the Levant and later wrote this assessment of the life there we who were once Occidental have now become Orientals he who was of rhymes or chakra has now become a citizen of tyree or Antioch we have already forgotten the places of our birth already these are unknown to many of us or not mentioned anymore some already possess homes our households by inheritance some have taken wives not only of their own people but Syrians Armenians or even Saracens who achieved the grace of baptism words of different languages have become the common property known to each nationality and mutual faith unites those who are ignorant of their descent he who was born a stranger is now as one born here he who was born an alien has become a native okay so much for the Crusades now after this shotgun blast of content let me say a big thank you to all my lovely patients who make it possible for me to even make these videos in the first place this one took quite a while and I'm very grateful for every single one of you if you current viewer also want to achieve this eternal glory the link is in the description access to the discord bonus content name in the credits it's all in there so give it a look second big thank you to everyone who is still watching right now because I know this was unusually long even for my videos but I think he would gain more from this approach rather than just analyzing steven crowder sources I had a lot of fun learning more about the Crusades and I encourage all of you to check out the books are listed in the description if you're interested there was also a lot of stuff I wanted to talk about which I had to drop like explaining why people even went on a crusade and the layers to their motivation but you know maybe I'll make a patreon video for that what else there's Twitter there's Instagram oh there's also a twitch channel on which I'll probably play some Crusader Kings - after this video goes live have a look at that if you like and I think that's it hopefully the next video won't be as long but until then have a good one

Channel: Three Arrows

Views: 875,843

Rating: 4.5832148 out of 5

Keywords: Crusades, Steven Crowder, Bill Warner, Jihad vs. Crusades, Three Arrows, 3 Arrows, crusades defensive, Steven Crowder debunked, First Crusade, pope urban II, first crusade, constantinople, middle ages, history, Islamic golden age, sack of Jerusalem

Id: ejdlkfXwPQc

Length: 63min 42sec (3822 seconds)

Published: Sun May 05 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/econoboxrocks]

Crowder is an absolute idiot. Change my mind.

[u/Feminist-Gamer]

Crowder has over 4 million subscribers, his videos get millions of views, and he peddles a lot of far right and even alt-right bullshit. Such what is shown in this video where he justifies the crusades and shows them in a positive light (I can't remember is he says they are good or necessary, it was a long time ago when I watched it). Admiring genocides against non-christians is a pretty extreme thing to peddle to such a large audience.

[u/swordst0plowshares]

Crowder is proof that meritocracy does not exist

[u/Metzger4]

God I hate him so much. He’s a coward and a TERRIBLE “comedian”

[u/ninja_nate1985]

Intentionally un educating people should be extremely fined and qualify you to be banned from collecting revenue on videos with your face in it.

[u/[deleted]]

Extreme Christianity is on the horizon again i swear to God we will see some sort of ISIS, just with Christians in the near future as the climate collapse unfolds

[u/DarthVamor]

When it comes to history it's easy to debunk idiotic claims especially ancient history. I had to deal with a couple of lunatic nationalist Israelis claiming Palestinians don't exist and claiming they are 5,000 years old which is ridiculous.

[u/LemonCanon]

Hooray 4.5% of the viewership of the Crowder video -.- 🎉

[u/Pec0sb1ll]

I thought three arrows was a bit too centrist for bakers?