144
145

How the Crusades Saved Europe (youtube.com)

bholdsworth が 投稿

全 181 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]of_skies_and_seas 63 ポイント64 ポイント  (14子コメント)

I am so tired of how the crusades are often taught wrongly in history classes. This is refreshing.

[–]savemebarrry 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (13子コメント)

It's literally a meme at this point to hate on the Crusades. They're the go-to example for some sort of "comparison" between modern Islamic extremism and perceived Christian extremism. Even President Obama himself drew the comparison, as well as self-described Catholics such as Stephen Colbert.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I'm mainly baffled by why its made such a big deal over as a success since most of the crusades were ultimately big failures. The narrative of some heroic victory preserving Europe is really more of a later invention to try to make it seem like something was accomplished

[–]Friend_of_Augustine 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The Crusades ultimately did, they go far beyond those of the Crusades in Palestine. The crusades in Iberia, the Balkans and the Mediterranean all worked to halt and stop Islamic expansion. Malta and Lepanto all served to check Ottoman expansion in the Mediterranean and it really all culminated with Vienna.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (9子コメント)

When the crusades are referred to its usually the 7 failed crusades in palestine.

As for Iberia, it was a complicated process and not as simple as the "heroic long war against the Muslim invaders" (the best example being how most of the progress of the Reconquista was when the Arab rulers in Al Andaluse fractured and weakened since when it actually had cohesion the Christians usually got their asses handed to them.

No one ever mentions the heroic teutonic crusades...

Lepanto is rather dubious to claim that it stopped the Ottoman expansion since the original goal of the fleet was to relive the siege of Crete and the Ottomans were not as handicapped by the destruction of the fleet as people like to claim. Also even though Ottoman and Christian propoganda liked to say "this stop Crete the next Rome" such unrealistic propoganda was the normal thing in those days, for instance immedately after Vienna, Malta and Lepanto there was always talk of imminent retaking of Constantinople.

Even Vienna had a lot more to do with the Habsburg's balance of power than the grand Christian Europe vs Muslim invaders narrative

[–]MilesChristi 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (6子コメント)

If your enemy has to deal with attacks on their soil, it is more difficult for them to continue their invasion of your lands. At worst, the Crusades stopgapped Muslim expansion.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

there wasn't a cohesive force in the Muslim world at the time of the First Crusade actively invading Christian lands. The Turkish conquest of Asia Minor had a lot to do with the incompetence of the Byzantine Empire rather than as a concentrated effort of conquest

[–]MilesChristi 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The Turks didn't try to conquer the Byzantine Empire? Why not? It was in the way, and it had a great position militarily and for trade. MUH GOLDEN HORN. Any rising power would have wanted to take Constantinople. The Turks were actively invading the Byzantine Empire (and they had plenty of reasons to do so), pull factors so to speak.

Then once they took Constantinople, then they took to the seas and started taking the Balkans. Janissaries, fam

[–]Ponce_the_Great 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The Turks didn't try to conquer the Byzantine Empire? Why not? It was in the way, and it had a great position militarily and for trade. MUH GOLDEN HORN. Any rising power would have wanted to take Constantinople. The Turks were actively invading the Byzantine Empire (and they had plenty of reasons to do so), pull factors so to speak.

The Ottoman Turks weren't there at the time. when the Battle of Manzikert occured the Turkish army invading was more of a raiding party (big raiding army) the Emperor got his army thuroughly destroyed because the Empire had been going through a lot of incompetent rulers. Then the Emperor got taken hostage, then there was a whole lot of internal civil warring and intriguing during which most of Asia Minor was conquerored by the Sultanate of Rum, but the funny thing is, the Byzantines under the Komenan Recovery were actually making a lot of gains, until the mess with the Fourth Crusade. What would be fascinating would be if the crusaders had taken the form of a military expedition to help the Byzantines (rather than confusing the Byzantines and occasionally attacking them for supplies)

[–]MilesChristi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

But the Seljuk Turks were and they made the initial gains against the Byzantine Empire.

[–]Friend_of_Augustine 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

When the crusades are referred to its usually the 7 failed crusades in palestine.

The First and Third were pretty successful, by all accounts. But to limit the scope of the crusades betrays what the crusades actually were.

As for Iberia, it was a complicated process and not as simple as the "heroic long war against the Muslim invaders"

Of course nothing is so simple, and I'm well aware of the nuances of it all. But in a rather crude way, yes it actually was so. The Duchy of Asturias was the lone Christian kingdom on the peninsula and fought very long and hard to preserve themselves in the midst of it all. The other states that rose up also fought against them, as well with each other, and continued to fight to liberate the peninsula.

I actually was considering mentioning the Teutonic Crusades, but I'm too little informed on them beyond to say that they're attempts to create a Baltic kingdom at the expense of the Poles, the Lithuanians and Russians was an absolute betrayal of the faith.

The point of mentioning them Lepanto, Malta and Vienna was to show that these were all battles where the Ottomans were soundly checked. Lepanto and Malta were critical to stopping the Turks from dominating the Mediterranean even further. The Ottomans were dead set on expanding into the Mediterranean and Central Europe and all of these fights stopped them and managed to preserve Europe.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The First and Third were pretty successful, by all accounts. But to limit the scope of the crusades betrays what the crusades actually were.

First crusade yes (unless you judge it by helping the Byzantine Empire since they were pissed about not getting cities returned to them) third crusade generally just fizzeled out and everyone went home angry and went to war with each other (and had some of the strangest adventures for the various monarchs who went on that crusade)

Lepanto i have read a lot on but I've never seen evidence it actually checked Muslim expansion since the stated goal of the campaign was Crete, which fell, and was part of a much larger naval war that went on for one or two centuries in the Mediteranian and was tied a lot into politics of the day often more than religion.

That said, the siege of Malta is still very impressive to me

[–]sobodash 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am constantly amazed and saddened that Stephen Colbert is allowed to teach Sunday School.

[–]Croesgadwr 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (25子コメント)

I've always seen the Crusades as a grey area. Some good and some bad. What happened in Antioch and Constantinople was a disgrace for example, and reports of massacre in Jerusalem is cause for concern. In truth the Crusades should have been aimed exclusively at Iberia and Asia Minor rather than the Holy Lands (at least until Europe was secure).

That said I'm tired of people misrepresenting the Crusades and having the likes of Obama comparing us to ISIS. "But muh Crusades" is the battle cry of Muslim apologists that seem to think they are at all comparable.

[–]Pope-Urban-III 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Save for the life of the Holy Family, I think we'll find that most everything in this world is a "grey area." We must resist the temptation to paint everything as "perfect" or "evil" and look deeper, to try to understand God's Will in all.

Trying to make it too simple would be the same as blaming Martin Luther for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as America wouldn't exist as it is without the Protestant Reformation.

[–]jdog1408 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Nagasaki, the center of Catholicism in Japan.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (12子コメント)

but was not bombed because of that (unless you ask a conspiracy theorist)

[–]jdog1408 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (11子コメント)

"Kyoto was removed for being too much of an important cultural center."

[–]Ponce_the_Great 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (9子コメント)

pretty much any city would have probably had good reasons against nuking it. i can't imagine any reason where Truman goes "Yes, f**k the Japanese Catholic in particular"

probably weren't even very aware of many Catholics in Nagasaki.

[–]Karamazov_Ivan 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Also the presence of Catholics doesn't impart cultural significance. The only people who place significance on the catholic presence are modern day Catholics. Everyone would place significance on Kyoto, even the Catholics in Nagasaki.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

yeah. though really morbid funny to me was imagining every city trying to come up with a "why you shouldn't nuke us" pitch

like a really really high stakes marketing competition

[–]Karamazov_Ivan 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Item number one: "The empire has forbidden evacuation please do not kill us"

Edit: I'm going to hell

[–]DrDankMemesSJ -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

i can't imagine any reason where Truman goes "Yes, f**k the Japanese Catholic in particular"

The one where he's a high-ranking Freemason.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Mozart was a mason

Mozart wrote Mass parts

Mozarts Masses are secretly subverting the Church!!!

[–]DrDankMemesSJ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, because Mozart's music killed nearly every Catholic in Salzburg.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No support for the notion he was following some evil "Ah yes since we're nuking Japan, let's make sure we can kill as many Catholics as possible because of my evil freemasonry."

[–]Croesgadwr 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is the work of the Jews!

[–]Ponce_the_Great 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Judo masonic lizard illuminati time traveling Nazi undead leninists confirmed

[–]Ibrey 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Henry Stimson, the Secretary of State and a leading figure on the committee that chose potential targets for the bomb, personally urged Truman to knock Kyoto off the list, supposedly because he had been there with his wife in the 20s and loved it. Truman wrote in his diary about this meeting that he and Stimson were in full agreement that the target should be a "purely military" one.

Stimson appears to have given Truman the impression that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purely military targets.

[–]IRVCath 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, because comparing them to John Calvin is, ahem, politically unpopular in a Protestant country (especially coming from the mouth of a Protestant President). Even though it would be more apt.

[–]MilesChristi 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Except that there were Christians being persecuted in the Holy Land, and European pilgrims as well.

[–]Croesgadwr 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

True, but do you not think that conquering swaths of land because there are oppressed Christian minorities there is a better idea than defending land that is home to Christian majorities? If the Crusaders focused on Iberia and Asia Minor, the land of the first Christian empire would still be Christian and the reconquista would have been finished half a millennia early.

Then they could focus on protecting the rights of Christian pilgrims and minority groups.

[–]MilesChristi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Well...there is the spiritual significance to the Holy Land that would command support and enthusiastic warriors that say Asia Minor wouldn't.

Iberia, after a while, was only interesting to the Iberians and the Southern French. Asia Minor did not inspire as much enthusiasm as taking back the Holy Land. Plus, a split between the East and the West had begun to form, and so...bad blood developed.

[–]Croesgadwr 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

But the main point of the first crusade was to repair relations with the east. The emperor appealed to the west for a few thousand troops and then they responded by sending tens of thousands of men.

[–]MilesChristi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Perhaps but the main goal of the soldiers themselves and what they eventually did...was take back the Holy Land. Edessa being a distraction that angered the other Crusaders

[–]Croesgadwr 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well those soldiers were wasting their time weren't they? Surely they should have know that the Crusader states had no hope of survival after being established. Anatolia had hope and they squandered it.

[–]MilesChristi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Just because they failed doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

[–]Croesgadwr 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It wasn't possible. A series of states with Muslim majorities, surrounded by Muslim countries with ambitious Muslim rulers. Where would they muster soldiers from? Would they press Muslim peasants to fight men of their own faith in a holy war? Continue to rely on Western Christians?

Maybe they could succeed with the backing of Byzantium, but Byzantium was in decline because the crusaders took land miles away from where they were supposed to.

[–]MilesChristi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It took 1000 years in Spain. If the Fourth Crusade had gone the right way, had they held Damascus, or had they actually taken Alexandria, they could have won.

[–]BadBjjGuy 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hashtag RetakeConstantinople

[–]Captain_Ludd 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Last time a crusade took Constantinople it was a grand old time, kicking out those heathens, the Christians!

[–]BadBjjGuy 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (22子コメント)

I'm so happy the first two comments are pro a new crusade.

Like, genuine smile.

Let's go guys, Deus Vult.

[–]Azraehl 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It is happening already

[–]Pope-Urban-III 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The fact that the Christian victory cry is "put the weapon that killed our God up for all to see" is beautiful.

[–]flp_ndrox 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's getting dusty over here, you guys :'-)

[–]Nokickfromchampagne 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What is stopping you from joining a milita over there right now?

[–]BadBjjGuy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well I'm not sure how to go about it really. I was hoping for something more formal, like, the Church to actually declare a crusade.

[–]Nokickfromchampagne -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are Christian militias in both Syria and Iraq that are always looking for volunteers. A quick google search could get you in the right track.

[–]Speedking2281 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (14子コメント)

What would be your officially stated goal of a new crusade?

[–]savemebarrry 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The defense of Christians being slaughtered across the Middle East. The same reason for the original crusade.

[–]Pope-Urban-III 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

As the video mentioned, the military aspects of the crusades were a result of the crusade - a major change in the world. What a new crusade is for (pro-tip: "New Crusade" and "New Evangelization" are the same thing) is a return to Christendom, a return to rule by Christ, King, which is not just a question of laws and nations and whatnot, but a rule in the heart of each and every Christian.

And that's where it starts, in the heart. Each person who submits to Christ becomes a foot-soldier in the New Crusade, which is just the continuation of the Church Militant. And He will lead us, often in ways we know not, but His grace will pour out.

It's going to be amazing.

[–]Karamazov_Ivan 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Would you say a crusade is... a spiritual struggle against sin?

[–]MilesChristi 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Retaking Constantinople, and taking back the Holy Land.

[–]WhyCantIQuitReddit16 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Defeating Protestantism and secularism. Europe will not be worth saving until those two are overcome. Undo 1519, and 1789.

[–]rosenley 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (6子コメント)

And Islam.

[–]BadBjjGuy 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Retaking Constantinople and the Hagia Sophia.

[–]VyMajoris 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Casus Belli Status: Approved

[–]kartoffeldego 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

History major, can confirm.

[–]SpireofSolace 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

C'mon men, put on your Crosses!

[–]levisan 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As one who never really learned much about the Crusades, it's nice to see a different perspective than what one usually sees!

[–]itnotFtSatHSa 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (5子コメント)

it's almost time for another crusade

[–]hahaitsalex 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Correction - It's long overdue for another crusade.

[–]Pope-Urban-III 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The Crusade is you. Each of us should repent and do the will of the Lord, because Deus Vult!

And as we turn toward God, we will be amazed at what happens.

It's beginning.

[–]savemebarrry 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

We need an organized effort to defend Christians being persecuted in the Middle East. Prayer and repentance are central, but prayer demands action as well.

[–]Pope-Urban-III 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree - it's just that we can't wait around until we figure out what the action is to be; we start praying and repenting now in our lives, which is something we can work on immediately, and we trust that God will make known what needs to be done.

Some will find that they have direct actions they can take, and will do so, and we should support them.

[–]BadBjjGuy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Crusade is also a bunch of bullets fired at people in the middle east.

[–]PrayHailMary 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Need yo do my research on the Crusades.

[–]TheThirdCrusade 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Had our ancestors just found the holy grail...

[–]Azraehl 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also worth watching

[–]tomthebomb90 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (74子コメント)

Yeah, the first crusade was so wonderful. Really Christian heros when they killed men, women and children. I am tired of right wing extremists co-opting the faith and nullifying it to venerate their ancestors and human traditions.

I guess the sermon on the mount means nothing to some Christians. The conclusion of the first crusade was anti-Christ. You like to believe that many people were heroes rather than fanatics, but you really got to learn about Peter the Hermit. Just because Christians in the past did something doesn't mean it's good. Christians in the past also murdered people, raped natives and stole land simply because they were pagans. Do you think Europeans always had control of Canada, USA and Australia? Secular Europeans used the excuse of preaching the gospel or serving God as an excuse do to evil things. Let's not be naive here.

[–]Joseph_de_Maistre 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (51子コメント)

There's nothing anti-Christian about war, or protecting Christian civilization.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (49子コメント)

how bout how all but one of the crusades was a failure to a greater or lesser degree.

They did not really achieve anything in the long term (other than give an enemy to unite the Arab world which at the time was fractured and splitting apart

[–]respiceinme 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (12子コメント)

The Crusader kingdoms lasted for 200 in some places. That means middle eastern Christians had a place to live and worship for 200 years, that alone is worth something. Also consider that even though only the first crusade was a total success, subsequent crusades did prolong Christian presence in the Holy Land or sometimes made the saracens treat their Christian subjects more fairly. Had it not been for the threat of a retaliatory crusade the saracens would have treated the Christians much worse.

And were it not for the Crusades in the Holy Land the Byzantine Empire might have fallen far earlier, you might disagree with that idea but it is a very real possibility which, if true, would certainly make your claim of failure false.

I also think we must acknowledge that the liberation of Spain was in fact a crusade and it was a total success not only for Europe but for Catholicism.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (11子コメント)

The Crusader kingdoms lasted for 200 in some places. That means middle eastern Christians had a place to live and worship for 200 years,

the Copts of Egypt had it better under Muslim rule than the Byzantines, and many Eastern Christians found it more favorable to pay taxes to Muslim rulers than get Latin Rite authority and traditions thrust on them since most did enjoy free worship rights under most Muslim rulers.

Also consider that even though only the first crusade was a total success, subsequent crusades did prolong Christian presence in the Holy Land or sometimes made the saracens treat their Christian subjects more fairly. Had it not been for the threat of a retaliatory crusade the saracens would have treated the Christians much worse.

The Muslim powers in the Middle East were fracturing, Egypt was independent, the Turks had taken over from the Caliph, Rum was doing its own thing and the Turks were crumbling in power. It was only in response to the crusades that a cohesive Muslim empire in the region reformed (for instance Damascus turned to Saladin for help when the Second Crusade decided to try and fail to take the city)

Amusingly enough, right before the first crusade arrived at Jerusalem it had been taken by Egypt, which was an ally of the Byznatine Empire against the Turks, and was very confused by the sudden Crusader army. As for under Muslim rule, it varied a lot, just like how Muslims and Jews varried in Christian Europe between being able to freely practice and being persecuted.

And were it not for the Crusades in the Holy Land the Byzantine Empire might have fallen far earlier, you might disagree with that idea but it is a very real possibility which, if true, would certainly make your claim of failure false.

The Byzantine histories don't agree with that claim, they didn't ask for the crusades, were recovering on their own (got mortally wounded by the 4th crusade) and Alexius only wanted some mercinaries to help him fight in Asia Minor, there were actually many conflicts between the Byzantines and the Crusaders when the Crusaders set up their own realms in what the Byzantines said was their rightful territories (even though the Byzantines had not really had any plans to try to take Palestine.

I also think we must acknowledge that the liberation of Spain was in fact a crusade and it was a total success not only for Europe but for Catholicism.

The Reconquista in Spain was a long and very complicated series of wars that are not as simple as heroic Christians struggling to throw out the evil Muslim occupiers (plus for most of the time the only successes by the Reconquista were when Al Andaluse was weak and divided, whenever they got some semblence of competent leadership and order they tended to win. From 1250 until 1492 the last stage of the Reconquista was a long and drawn out war where the weight had finally shifted to the Christian's side but were content to keep either client states or deal with internal squabbles or wars among Christian kingdoms than follow some philosophy of "reclaiming all of Spain" given how the modern notion of Spain didn't exist yet.

The final conquest of Granada was about as dramatic and necessary as, well if the U.S. decided to invade Cuba in 2017 to vanquish communism and complete the liberation of the Americas,

[–]MilesChristi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Better the turban of the Sultan than the Tiara of the Pope" (LAUGHS IN THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE)

[–]BadBjjGuy -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is some serious Cucking for Islam here.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Cucking? What a very Christian term to use...

[–]Aoxxt 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sigh that alt-right edgy racist stuff is leaking all over now and days.

[–]respiceinme 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

the Copts of Egypt had it better under Muslim rule than the Byzantines...

I seriously doubt that Eastern Christians, in general, prefered Islamic rule over the crusaders', especially seeing how they often fought alongside the crusaders, and not only the armenians and the greeks but the local christians would often join besieging crusaders against their muslim overlord.

The Muslim powers in the Middle East were fracturing...

So maybe it would have stayed fractured or maybe it would have united eventually anyway and then we would have missed the chance to rule the Holy Land and liberate the Christians for 100 years. What exactly do you think would have improved if the crusades hadn't happend?

As for under Muslim rule, it varied a lot, just like how Muslims and Jews varried in Christian Europe between being able to freely practice and being persecuted.

All Christians lived under some degree of dhimmitude which is even in its most benign form very degrading and over time always leads to a decrease in Christians an increase in muslims. And the muslims aren't even allowed to convert to Christians. As a catholic you must agree that islamic rule is terrible for catholicism and the salvation of souls.

The Reconquista in Spain was a long and very complicated series of wars that are not as simple as heroic Christians struggling to throw out the evil Muslim occupiers (plus for most of the time the only successes by the Reconquista were when Al Andaluse was weak and divided, whenever they got some semblence of competent leadership and order they tended to win. From 1250 until 1492 the last stage of the Reconquista was a long and drawn out war where the weight had finally shifted to the Christian's side but were content to keep either client states or deal with internal squabbles or wars among Christian kingdoms than follow some philosophy of "reclaiming all of Spain" given how the modern notion of Spain didn't exist yet.

I don't see how this relates to my points here, first that the Reconquista was part of the Crusades, secondly that it was a great success and thirdly that this very good for Europe and more importantly for the Catholic faith.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I seriously doubt that Eastern Christians, in general, prefered Islamic rule over the crusaders', especially seeing how they often fought alongside the crusaders, and not only the armenians and the greeks but the local christians would often join besieging crusaders against their muslim overlord.

when the Arabs invaded Egypt there are reports of Copts helping the invaders because the Byzantiens were actively persecuting them. Things like the 4th crusade and crusaders establishing Latin rite bishops in Eastern Sees didn't help.

<What if games are really not conductive to talking about history, since by the same notion perhaps the Byzantines would have finished reassembling and have gone onto reconqueror asia minor and dominated the mid east. But its impossible to know.

I'm simply saying the notion of it heroically preventing a muslim conquest seems difficult to support and more likely just trying to find success from general failures.

[–]respiceinme 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

when the Arabs invaded Egypt there are reports of Copts helping the invaders because the Byzantiens were actively persecuting them.

Yes but this is not an argument against the crusades nor the rule of the crusader states..

Things like the 4th crusade and crusaders establishing Latin rite bishops in Eastern Sees didn't help.

I wish people would stop bringing up the 4th crusade, it's a lot more complicated than it's made out to be and besides, it wasn't even a real crusade. But sure admittedly the 4th crusade did weaken the byzantines greatly, I am however of the opinion that the byzantines might not even have survived until the 4th crusade were it not for the previous three crusades.

What if games are really not conductive to talking about history, since by the same notion perhaps the Byzantines would have finished reassembling and have gone onto reconqueror asia minor and dominated the mid east. But its impossible to know. I'm simply saying the notion of it heroically preventing a muslim conquest seems difficult to support and more likely just trying to find success from general failures.

I agree with the first part but I think there are very good reasons to believe that the crusades impeded islamic advancement into Christian lands and I'm fairly sure there's prominent crusade scholars who agree with this assessment.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I wish people would stop bringing up the 4th crusade, it's a lot more complicated than it's made out to be and besides, it wasn't even a real crusade.

but it was a result of the Crusades.

there's prominent crusade scholars who agree with this assessment.

I've yet to see an argument of this effect that is not clearly a very opinionated view trying to convince you how great the crusades were. As opposed to the book I was reading that made a very good case for why Mary I Tudor's reign was not as bad as the general opinion is, but the book was a reevaluation rather than saying "Mary Tudor's reign was the best English queen of the 1500s" or something

[–]respiceinme 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've yet to see an argument of this effect that is not clearly a very opinionated view trying to convince you how great the crusades were. As opposed to the book I was reading that made a very good case for why Mary I Tudor's reign was not as bad as the general opinion is, but the book was a reevaluation rather than saying "Mary Tudor's reign was the best English queen of the 1500s" or something

People on both side of this issue are very opinionated and there are scholars who land on both side of the issue.

[–]MilesChristi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Fourth Crusade is more of an argument not to let the Venetian run anything than the idea that the Crusades were bad.

[–]BadBjjGuy 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well that just means we Deus Vult a little harder this time.

[–]MilesChristi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (34子コメント)

They basically created the identity of Modern Europe, and prevented Muslim incursions to Europe proper. And if you include the Reconquista, and people of the time did, restored Spain permanantly (as of today)

[–]Ponce_the_Great 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (33子コメント)

They basically created the identity of Modern Europe

that's not necessarily a good thing given all the racism and arbitrary "Europeanness" which has come of that.

prevented Muslim incursions to Europe proper.

No they didn't, heck the 4th Crusade directly enabled that since they shot the Byzantine Empire in the chest and let it blead out

And if you include the Reconquista, and people of the time did, restored Spain permanantly (as of today)

As I've said elsewhere, the Reconqusita was more complex than simply a big war for reconquering the peninsula. From 1250 onwards most of the remaining southern territories of the peninsula were basically just client states of Castile and they didn't feel like subjugating until it was politically convenient.

There was a lot more complexity and alliances between Christians and muslims against other muslims and Christians than the popular narrative summaries usually indicate

[–]anglertaio 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Our ancestors should not have fought their enemies because that allowed them to have racist modern descendants

This position is truly disgusting.

[–]BadBjjGuy 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yea. Frankly that makes me a little more racist, not less.

How DARE I care about my ethnicity. How DARE I!!

[–]Ponce_the_Great -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not actually arguing against the crusades happening, simply that they did not achieve any real success and cannot be romanticized like people like to do on this sub.

The idea that by going and getting slaughtered they were some how stopping those evil Muslims, or that while getting killed they were somehow creating some common European identity is a crap spin doctoring.

Those noble European crusaders, who also had no problem launching a teutonic crusade against their fellow Christians in Russia, or slaughtering Frenchmen in the Albigensiean Crusade.

[–]BadBjjGuy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Why is "Europeanness" bad?

Why is it bad to say, hey, this is my tribe of people and I owe allegiance to them first?

Literally every country on earth does that.

[–]tomthebomb90 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Why do you disagree with Jesus?

43 You have heard that it hath been said: *Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy.

44 But I say to you: Love your enemies, *do good to them that hate you: ***and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you,

45 That you may be the children of your Father, who is in heaven: who maketh his sun to rise upon the good and the bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

46 For if you love those that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens the same?

48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

No wonder people here hate Pope Francis so much. They don't know Jesus or what the faith teaches.

[–]BadBjjGuy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Loving your enemies doesn't mean

A) pretending they're not enemies, it in fact implies an acknowledgement that they are enemies

B) That you love them as much as your brethren/tribe. You might as well say I ought love a stranger as much as me own mum, which is not only silly but against the natural law.

[–]tomthebomb90 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Read Matthew 25 again. Most Christians go to hell for not having charity despite faith. Also Jesus was not a European.

[–]BadBjjGuy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Charity doesn't mean "give your nation away."

[–]MilesChristi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What does Jesus' particular ethnicity have to do with this?

Most Christians go to hell for sins of the flesh

[–]BadBjjGuy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, we're just not all cucks.

[–]JohnThePapist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

How unchristian of you turn around and chastises europe for being europe, and specifically for waging wars that were not only for the glory of the Church but also acts of defense against saracen invaders I like how these people try to discredit our ancestors, who fought bloody wars so that I, for example, a 100% spanish latin american, could be of the faith. How DARE YOU defend your people and faith. You were only doing it for love of God and country, some of the noblest reasons to wage a war.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why is "Europeanness" bad?

well as Christians we're supposed to not let national loyalties come before common Christain identity. The arbitraray wars and massacres over nationalities are horrible crimes against our brothers in Christ. What's more funny is that Europeannness was even more arbitrary, since you'd have people go back and forth on whether Russians or Spanish or Italians were true Europeans because really it came down to "whoever its convenient for us to be friends with is European"

The most amazing example would probably be World War I. Before that all those colonial powers had no problem using machine guns and poison gas on primitives but suddenly countries have no problem using them on fellow "civilized" Europeans.

Europeanness is a fiction the same as "Christendom" was a made up fiction

[–]MilesChristi 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (18子コメント)

  1. You take the good with the bad. It turned Europe from a bunch of disparate warring tribes into finally strong nations and started to rebuild civilization. The Dark Ages weren't that Dark, but there was still chaos, and it was a long march to redeveloping civilization. High Middle Ages and all that.

  2. The Fourth Crusade is an exception. It was a mess from the beginning, and I blame the Venetians. It was their particular double dealings that turned the Fourth Crusade towards Zara and Constantinople. If it wasn't for them, it would have been another normal Crusade. Also #MassacreOfTheLatins.

  3. The Reconquista stopped Muslim incursions further North. And of course, competing tribes after having sufficiently defeated a common enemy and having gotten their own lands, would begin to fight among themselves. However, eventually, they took back all of Spain. It took longer than expected because, well...human nature.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (17子コメント)

You take the good with the bad. It turned Europe from a bunch of disparate warring tribes into finally strong nations and started to rebuild civilization.

They weren't tribes at the time, Europe wasn't gripped in the dark ages like people describe it, things were recovering. The first crusade was actually led by dukes and counts who were stronger than the irrelevant kings of their days. And the crusades died out because the growing power of national rulers made the old style of crusading inefficient and impossible, and larger countries did not really want to undergo such undertakings that were irrelevant to their own foreign policies and interests (unless it was convenient to them)

The Reconquista stopped Muslim incursions further North. And of course, competing tribes after having sufficiently defeated a common enemy and having gotten their own lands, would begin to fight among themselves. However, eventually, they took back all of Spain. It took longer than expected because, well...human nature.

No the Reconquista as a crusade started around the time of the first crusade/year 1000 at the earliest. Muslim expansion northwards had stopped well before Charlemagne (there's some debate about how important the Battle of Tours actually was but let's use that as the end point. From then on it was a back and forth of claiming territories, raiding the other, and having a lot of uninhabited noman's land in between. You seem to think there was a lot more tribalism in Spain that there actually was.

And there really doesn't seem to have been the narrative of "releasing and liberating Spain under a united front" until much later (like sometime in the 1300s or 1400s would be my guess. well after the reconquista's actually important wars were over since the last hundred years basically consisted of Granada as a client state of Castile)

[–]MilesChristi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Except that the Spanish were liberating their own peninsula, and since it was a war retaking Christian lands against the Muslims, it was a Crusade, so to speak. Of course, there were no True Crusades before 1095, but the Spanish reconquest had the same goal: retaking Christian lands.

*Also, I'm using tribes as a general term. Just highlighting the divisions in Europe, and the relative lack of organization outside of the particular empires that rose and fell during that time period. I don't believe in the Dark Ages Myth either but it is a fact that Europe was still disorganized and semi-chaotic at the time.

[–]Ponce_the_Great 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Except that the Spanish were liberating their own peninsula, and since it was a war retaking Christian lands against the Muslims, it was a Crusade, so to speak. Of course, there were no True Crusades before 1095, but the Spanish reconquest had the same goal: retaking Christian lands.

its complictated to call ownership since it wasn't the Visigoths doing the Reconquista (a term which itself is a good propganda term) the mindset of it being a reconquest was an evolution over time. to start with it was just about conquering land because that's what people did in those days. (territorial rights the Native Americans are free to launch a Reconquista against the U.S. in a just war any time)

but i don't really see reason why other parts of Europe saw more centralizing due to the Crusades.

Spain you can make the argument that it helped create the strong monarchy in Aragon but even then Spain did not really gain a strong monarchy until much later during the reformation era, and a united Spain was not even technically a thing until the 15 or 1600s (before that the King just kept collecting royal titles under one crown, leading to the most amazing if slightly ridiculous list of titles ever

[–]MilesChristi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Except Asturias, the people who did the Reconquest were the descendants of those at Asturias, and then people who joined afterwards.

Don Pelayo and all that.

And considering those that joined afterwards were Christians as well...

[–]tomthebomb90 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They went way above defense here. I actual read the history here. The Church nor Jesus approved of many of the things they did. In principle, nothing wrong with it. But in practice it was wrong.

[–]MilesChristi 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

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

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

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

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

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

[–]tomthebomb90 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Did they do this things in God's name?

[–]MilesChristi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

They did it in the name of Democracy and against the Nazis.

[–]tomthebomb90 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

At least they didn't blaspheme God like many right wing extremists. The massacre in Jerusalem was simply satanic.

[–]MilesChristi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Satanic? More like barbaric. Inhumane does not equal satanic. Atrocities in war aren't blasphemy. They are just atrocities in war.

I see nothing less Satanic about the Marrochinate

[–]tomthebomb90 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

They did these atrocities in the holy name of Jesus.

[–]MilesChristi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No...they committed these atrocities in the same war,they fought in the Holy Name.

[–]JohnThePapist 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Oh yeah how about that if it was not for the crusades you would be on a muslim subreddit and name would be achmed khumar. Oh I'm sorry, I forgot we are supposed to be Jehovah Witnesses and stand by as christiandom gets destroyed.

[–]tomthebomb90 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

One may never do evil so that good may result. Is morality objective? Is truth objective? Why do some Catholics insist on these things but don't apply it to their ancestors?

[–]MilesChristi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because the Crusaxes weren't evil. Specific atrocities committed during them were illegal. Otherwise it was evil to fight the Nazis because the Allies literally raped the continent.

[–]tomthebomb90 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

In theory what the pope said wasn't evil. In practice what the Crusaders did was.

[–]MilesChristi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In theory, WWII wasn't evil...in practice it was

[–]Captain_Ludd 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

wow, this is some low tier reddit commenting, especially for a subreddit about a religion.

[–]Ilcapoditutticapi 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

People are always so eager to wave the flag of God and country and march off to war with songs in their hearts. It's disappointing. Did we learn nothing from the two centuries of blood and inhumanity that whatever intentions the Crusades began with, it ended with man gaining earthly power and the spilling the blood of the innocent to achieve it? Let's not also forget how many Jews these pious Crusaders slaughtered and robbed on their "pilgrimage" to the Levant.

[–]BadBjjGuy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sometimes you gotta spill some blood dude. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

[–]MilesChristi 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Do you know how much blood was shed for equality? Do you know how many women were raped by the Allies who were fighting the Nazis?

[–]Pope-Urban-III 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If I'm going to take blind adherence to a doctrine, I'll take the one that adheres to a coherent doctrine as opposed to an incoherent one. And if imperfect adherence to the one has caused thousands of deaths, perfect adherence to the second has caused untold millions.

How many more will have to die on the altar of equality? "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" indeed.

[–]MilesChristi 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm confused as to your argument. My idea is mainly atrocities by certain in your party don't invalidate the cause. Otherwise, we really should be condemned for going to war against the Nazis and the Japanese Empire.

[–]stoplyintho 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Great video!

That vocal fry tho

[–]Dave1722 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm doing a paper on this right now, fascinating stuff.

[–]bholdsworth[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just to add a little more context, I've been subscribed to this channel for a while and it has never struck me as biased. He's not a Catholic apologist and I've never heard him specifically argue on behalf of a Catholic world view. He just seems to provide a fairly objective, well researched, account of the Crusades and spends a lot of time dispelling myths. It seems like a LOT of the objections in the comments here are addressed in the video and in his other videos. I'd encourage everyone to spend some time watching them before reacting.

[–]Cmgeodude 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This entire thread terrifies me. I'm a medieval philologist who has read nearly every source text there is to read on the crusades. While I agree that the intentions were there, the actions taken by the crusaders were sinful and should not be condoned, and especially not used as an example today! We can protect Middle Eastern Christians without (depending on how far you want to go) : 1) reviving a thousand year old war and/or 2) forcefully obliterating Islam (as some have suggested). If our value is religious freedom, it goes more than one way. Protect the innocent, yes. Admonish the guilty, yes. Slaughter an entire religious community in the name of a thousand year old series of military actions that we are mad about losing? No. No. No.

[–]viogreed -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

At first I was excited to see the Deus Vult comments and then the apologists and pacifists comments were just below..

[–]Captain_Ludd -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Obligatory DEUS VULT

Still, the crusaders where never anything but the corruption of the church using its abilities for secular gain. nothing more. anyone who has even the slightest grasp of history knows this.