Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > History Help Forum > Learning History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Learning History History Learning Materials - Tutorials, video lectures, lessons that teach history


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 22nd, 2016, 07:17 PM   #1

BordoEnes's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: Earth
Posts: 135
Real Crusaders History Youtube Channel - Real or Biased history?


Hi,

I actually came across this channel yesterday and initially i thought that it looked like a proper history learning channel where one could learn history from an objective point of view(despite its name). However this channel appears to me to be heavely glorifying Christians and the Crusaders and make Muslims look bad. Now i am not a Historian by a long shot and so i wont judge. So i wanted to see the point of view and opinion of you all. Are his videos really factual or simply one side of a coin?

Youtube Channel:
BordoEnes is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 23rd, 2016, 10:12 PM   #2

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 698

Well, it is abruptly stopping at the third crusade. Where is the notorious fourth crusade analysis? Maybe not biased, but omitting vital details about their role in destroying the eastern orthodox world, which cleared the way for an ottoman advance.

Edit: I saw they have a separate playlist about the fourth crusade at the very bottom, so yeah they cover that too to some extent.

Last edited by TupSum; January 23rd, 2016 at 10:29 PM.
TupSum is online now  
Old January 24th, 2016, 07:13 AM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,158

They seem to be on a mission to correct the common narrative of the Crusades as the prime sin of Christianity, just like I was . Of course, there is a bit of drama in their videos, but I guess to be successful on youtube you need to provide a bit of entertainment. I have not watched all videos, but they seem to base their videos on some fine literature and it doesn't seem to me to be a "blame the Muslims" kind of agenda they follow. Also, they look at the Crusades from a broader perspective and take important events like the liberation of Lisbon into account, which was pivotal to modern European history for it freed Portugal to pursue a policy of expansion. The only negative point, for me, is that they seem not to make use of the French and German literature on the Crusades which, imho, is in many respects more detailed and more brought in scope than a lot of the English literature.
Entreri is offline  
Old January 24th, 2016, 07:14 AM   #4

BordoEnes's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: Earth
Posts: 135

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
Well, it is abruptly stopping at the third crusade. Where is the notorious fourth crusade analysis? Maybe not biased, but omitting vital details about their role in destroying the eastern orthodox world, which cleared the way for an ottoman advance.

Edit: I saw they have a separate playlist about the fourth crusade at the very bottom, so yeah they cover that too to some extent.
Watched some videos of him. I am convinced this dude is watching the Crusades from a coloured Pro-Christian glass. I mean like you see him making videos with titles such as "Saladin: Bad or Good?" but his video doesnt even ask or has anything the do with that question. He pretty much bashes and down plays Saladin the entire video whilst glorifying Richard and the Crusaders. He is even trying to down play the destructive mess that was the fourth and the aftermath of the third crusade.

EDIT: Please just watch his "The Fourth Crusade: A Concise Overview for Students" video. At the end of the video he is actually blaming the Byzantines for the sack of Constantinople... and he is also extremely downplaying the impact of this, saying that the Byzantine empire was already failing and that the fourth Crusade is more of a manifestation of its weakness rather then its cause. This is true to some degree i'll admit.

Last edited by BordoEnes; January 24th, 2016 at 07:45 AM.
BordoEnes is offline  
Old January 24th, 2016, 10:15 AM   #5
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,158

Quote:
Originally Posted by BordoEnes View Post
EDIT: Please just watch his "The Fourth Crusade: A Concise Overview for Students" video. At the end of the video he is actually blaming the Byzantines for the sack of Constantinople... and he is also extremely downplaying the impact of this, saying that the Byzantine empire was already failing and that the fourth Crusade is more of a manifestation of its weakness rather then its cause. This is true to some degree i'll admit.
I do think his wording might seem to be a bit too much of a generalization, but I essentially agree with him on this. The Byzantines as a "people" were, of course, not to blame. Isaak II and Alexios weren't able to provide the Crusaders with what they had pledged to give them in return for their services. They must have been fully in the know that the Crusader's lack of resources was the reason they helped them in the first place, so it shouldn't come to them as a surprise that they wouldn't be content with just the glory of restoring Isaak and demand what they needed to continue their mission. While the Venetians and some of the leaders ceased the moment to grab power and installed their own rules in various parts of the Empire, some of the actual Crusaders continued their journey toward the East. As for the weakening for the Empire, well, as you said, the 4th Crusade was the direct result of the tensions within the Empire.
Entreri is offline  
Old January 24th, 2016, 10:53 AM   #6

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 698

Quote:
Originally Posted by BordoEnes View Post
EDIT: Please just watch his "The Fourth Crusade: A Concise Overview for Students" video. At the end of the video he is actually blaming the Byzantines for the sack of Constantinople... and he is also extremely downplaying the impact of this, saying that the Byzantine empire was already failing and that the fourth Crusade is more of a manifestation of its weakness rather then its cause. This is true to some degree i'll admit.
Is it true indeed? That's like the Germans saying, yeah it was France's fault, they were too weak. (I know the Goodwin's law, just couldn't help it)

Anyway, let's look at what happened after the fall of Constantinople.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire

Crusaders say oh well, our goal is fighting Islam, liberating the Holy Land and all that jazz, Constantinople was a blunder, we thought it was Jerusalem.

But wait, after the fall of Constantinople they split up the spoils into several small feudal states, just like they did it in western Europe.

They went immediately north and attacked Bulgaria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar...0%93Latin_wars

The bulgars were pointing to the south and screaming: Yo, Jerusalem is THAT way!

Basically this channel should stop proclaiming that the Crusades saved Europe from Islam. It is a half-truth. It is true in the west, in Spain. It is absolutely false in Byzantium and the northern crusades.

The Crusades were mercenaries of the Venice, brainwashed by the catholic pope with the goal of extending the power of Venice.

They destroyed the eastern roman empire instead of fighting the turks and were the leading cause for 500 years of ottoman rule in eastern Europe.
TupSum is online now  
Old January 25th, 2016, 01:40 AM   #7
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,158

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
Is it true indeed? That's like the Germans saying, yeah it was France's fault, they were too weak. (I know the Goodwin's law, just couldn't help it)
No, it's not, these are completely different cases. France didn't invite the Wehrmacht and the French rulers didn't promised the Germans anything they couldn't pay. And the Germans weren't badly in need of French food supplies, either.

Quote:
Anyway, let's look at what happened after the fall of Constantinople.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire

Crusaders say oh well, our goal is fighting Islam, liberating the Holy Land and all that jazz, Constantinople was a blunder, we thought it was Jerusalem.

But wait, after the fall of Constantinople they split up the spoils into several small feudal states, just like they did it in western Europe.
You have to make a distinction here. The fourth Crusade originally was planned to end Muslim rule over Egypt because, like Richard I realized, it was from this rich part of the Mediterranean world that the Muslims could mount successful attacks. However, the Crusaders weren't content with this, they wanted to go to the Holy Land. The strategists of the Crusades realized that they had lie to their army and tell them they were going to Jerusalem. What we can infer from hat is that, indeed, the majority of Crusaders had the goal of fighting Islam and liberating the Holy Land.
Furthermore, it weren't the Crusaders who split up the Byzantine Empire, but a few of the leaders and the Venetians, not the average Crusader.

Quote:

The Crusades were mercenaries of the Venice, brainwashed by the catholic pope with the goal of extending the power of Venice.

They destroyed the eastern roman empire instead of fighting the turks and were the leading cause for 500 years of ottoman rule in eastern Europe.
The Crusades effectively halted Muslim advances into Anatolia and even made possible the reconquest of large swathes of the former Byzantine Empire around 1100. Not only that, the Crusades also lead to rising Muslim powers of the region to focus on the Christians [as a secondary target because primarily, even during the Crusades, the Muslims fought each other on a much larger scale than the Christians: Seljucs, Zengids, Ayyubids, Fatimids, Mamluks, which is, by the way, the main reason for the success of the early Crusades int he first place] in the Levant instead of those in the Bosporus.
Entreri is offline  
Old January 25th, 2016, 07:50 AM   #8

JoanOfArc007's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: USA
Posts: 2,643

Quote:
Originally Posted by BordoEnes View Post
Hi,

I actually came across this channel yesterday and initially i thought that it looked like a proper history learning channel where one could learn history from an objective point of view(despite its name). However this channel appears to me to be heavely glorifying Christians and the Crusaders and make Muslims look bad. Now i am not a Historian by a long shot and so i wont judge. So i wanted to see the point of view and opinion of you all. Are his videos really factual or simply one side of a coin?

Youtube Channel:
This goes both ways. There are also so called documentaries on the Crusades which pits the Christians in a negative light. I find that anytime you see a man or woman claim that oh the Crusades were an answer to Muslim fanatics, or all the Crusaders were bad guys who slaughtered the inhabitants of Jerusalem...then you are not dealing with facts. According to modern day Historians as well as Christian and Muslim scholars of the middle ages...there was honor, nobility, despair, hatred and tolerance coming from both sides during the 200 year period of the Crusades.

Though I must say, I do not often hear folks that are glorifying one side of the Crusade.

I can not imagine how folks can look at the Crusades as well as the religions of Christianity and Islam in general...and come away with a negative viewpoint. I think of King Arthur, The Holy Grail, the Swords that Muhammad Carried, the Crusaders, to me these things are amazing to study. God willing most people will contine to look at Salahudeen, Godfrey of Boulion, the Christian and Muslim Knights of the middle ages with honor.

I look at the KKK of the 1920s, I look at ISIL today...I see no honor whatsoever, I see two groups that are disgrace to the term chivalry.

To be overtly critical of the Muslim side or Christian side(btw there was alliances and infighting among these groups) during the Crusades IMO goes against the chivalry of arguably two of the greatest men of the Crusades..that being Godfrey of Bouillon and Salahudeen.

Last edited by JoanOfArc007; January 25th, 2016 at 08:32 AM.
JoanOfArc007 is offline  
Old January 25th, 2016, 09:52 AM   #9

BordoEnes's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: Earth
Posts: 135

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoanOfArc007 View Post
This goes both ways. There are also so called documentaries on the Crusades which pits the Christians in a negative light. I find that anytime you see a man or woman claim that oh the Crusades were an answer to Muslim fanatics, or all the Crusaders were bad guys who slaughtered the inhabitants of Jerusalem...then you are not dealing with facts. According to modern day Historians as well as Christian and Muslim scholars of the middle ages...there was honor, nobility, despair, hatred and tolerance coming from both sides during the 200 year period of the Crusades.

Though I must say, I do not often hear folks that are glorifying one side of the Crusade.

I can not imagine how folks can look at the Crusades as well as the religions of Christianity and Islam in general...and come away with a negative viewpoint. I think of King Arthur, The Holy Grail, the Swords that Muhammad Carried, the Crusaders, to me these things are amazing to study. God willing most people will contine to look at Salahudeen, Godfrey of Boulion, the Christian and Muslim Knights of the middle ages with honor.

I look at the KKK of the 1920s, I look at ISIL today...I see no honor whatsoever, I see two groups that are disgrace to the term chivalry.

To be overtly critical of the Muslim side or Christian side(btw there was alliances and infighting among these groups) during the Crusades IMO goes against the chivalry of arguably two of the greatest men of the Crusades..that being Godfrey of Bouillon and Salahudeen.
I couldnt agree more.
BordoEnes is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2016, 04:19 PM   #10

JoanOfArc007's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: USA
Posts: 2,643

Bordoenes,

At least part of the Real Crusades History provides a positive treatment to the Muslims and Christians,

During the interview with Dr. Helena Schrader, Schrader says that Saladin provided safe conduct to Balian of Ibelin so Balian could get his family from Jerusalem , so long as Balian entered the city unarmed.

Upon entering Jerusalem, Balian was convinced to stay and was absolved of his oath to Saladin by Priests. Balian wrote to Saladin to explain the situation, somehow, amazingly Saladin absolved Balian of the oath and still sent a guard to safely escort Balians family from Jerusalem where Balian stayed behind and Knighted the entire city of Christians in Jerusalem to prepare for battle.

Now that is some amazing chivalry on both sides.

Last edited by JoanOfArc007; February 3rd, 2016 at 04:24 PM.
JoanOfArc007 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > History Help Forum > Learning History

Tags
biased, channel, crusaders, youtube



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My new YouTube channel about history teodorski Learning History 0 July 14th, 2015 04:46 AM
History Youtube Channel highlander01 Learning History 10 July 3rd, 2014 02:59 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.