5 Myths About the Crusades

[@pruittiii]

Father Casey: As a history major, this is an excellent explanation of The Crusades. Less and less history is being taught on the secondary school level. The Crusades are being lumped into a few paragraphs. Your explanations of them offer much more information than a high school student receives in a public school world history class. Your video, in nine minutes, offers a better history lesson than provided by most high school teachers. History teachers would do well to use this as a part of the unit which includes this period of time. Kudos for a job well done.

[@anthonyw2931]

It's not just high schools, there are advanced levels of history books that lean on one aspect. Popular culture like movies and books paint a different picture depending on what side of the conflict one prescribes to.

[@williamreymond2669]

Ok, maybe, but Fr. Casey's is the freshman 101 level understanding of the subject - which is ok. The other, completely historical, understanding of the subject is that Islam was - and to this day is mostly - committed to the idea of destroying Christianity [and all other religions] and replacing it with Islam. Ok, you reply, Christianity is a similarly triumphalist religion. Ok, fair enough, but which god would you preferer, a God a who allows himself to be constrained by Love, Faithfulness and Reason, or an anti-god so abstract that he allows himself to be constrained by *nothing,* nothing at all. I prefere God.

[@anthonyw2931]

@@williamreymond2669 this doesn't make sense

[@urielmartinez2161]

@@williamreymond2669 yep exactly

[@andrewcamden]

As a history major I can say that this is nonsense. Muslims did NOT generally kill or displace Christians. On the contrary, no less than Muhammad himself commanded Muslims to respect Christians and their places of worship. (Obviously not all Muslims did as Muhammad commanded but "kill or displace" was NOT the general policy towards Christians in most of the Muslim world anymore than concentration camps were the general policy adopted by Christians towards Jews.) . Most of the worst violence against Christians in the Middle East happened long after the crusades as a result of either nationalism and American-backed regime-change creating failed states (as recently occurred in Iraq, Libya and Syria.)

[@johnm5928]

Great overview on the misconceptions! Next up: what people get wrong about the Spanish Inquisition which is probably more misrepresented and misunderstood than the crusades.

[@batmaninc2793]

They expected it?

[@Mathayas_]

@@batmaninc2793 yes actually. The inquisition were not secret agents so their movement though towns was public, and they would start with public declarations of what they were investigating with a minimum grace period of 30 days before they would detain anyone. I think this may have been dropped later on but its one of those things where the inquisition wasn't actually very standardized so how it was handled in different regions could vary.

[@batmaninc2793]

@@Mathayas_ NERRRRRRRD!!!

[@brianfarley926]

💯

[@ARPine-bt9uo]

​@@batmaninc2793 😂

[@auntyfluffy]

Fr. Casey I watched this with a wee bit of tepidation; but thank you. I lived Islam for 16 years, and while you know I came home to Catholisim after a long long journey, I am glad to see how you addressed this, as well as inspiring the below conversation. Great way to start Holy Week, God bless you!🕊🕊🕊

[@KaanEsenkurt56]

✝️☦️

[@joserubio9615]

Glad to have you as my Brother in Christ Jesus! God Bless you and your Family!

[@KaanEsenkurt56]

@@joserubio9615 you to ✝️☦️

[@nicolasadjignon1336]

Oooh I was in Islam for 14 years before convert to Catholic! :)

[@FlyingAlfredoSaucer]

So many people use the Crusades as their only criticism of Catholicism or Christianity in general.

[@BritishRepublicsn]

If the Catholic Church is so good then why did people do something bad under the Church's name hundreds of years ago? Checkmate you Papal-worshipping idolist!

[@ObsessedStephenKingFanatic1974]

There's plenty of things to criticize for the Catholic and Christian Churches. Like the kiddie diddling.

[@tefky7964]

Yeah,I don´t get it either when there is so much more to critise.

[@marvalice3455]

​@@tefky7964 that's the thing, there isn't actually. I know a lot of people like to pretend that Christianity when compared to alternative systems was in by any single metric not objectively better, but to do so they always need to either make things up, or ignore there own, objectively worse, atrocities.

[@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960]

Its the most low IQ objection out there and exposes anyone as a netflix bingewatcher historian. Literally the first lines of wikipedia explain that the crusade only happened when a new muslim leader opressed christians in jerusalem

[@TheBlackopsDS]

The prelude to the First Crusade is super interesting. The Byzantine/Eastern Roman Emperor was concerned about the Muslim incursions into the empire and the persecution of Christians in the Holy Land and asked the Pope if the Catholics could help (at this point, the Orthodox and Catholics had formally split via mutual excommunication). The Pope, wanting to return to ecumenism, agreed to help out. The formation of a Christian state in Muslim lands also was good to protect trade and perhaps even form a buffer state between the two religious realms.

[@Otaku155]

As a historian, I appreciate this!

[@theguyver4934]

Wait i'm confused is he saying that all the christian achivments like science or renaissance were only possable because of islam

[@NothingSerious...2]

​@@theguyver4934no and it wasn't the case

[@aagelman80]

Thank you for your even handedness Father.

[@batmaninc2793]

Forehand *and* backhand

[@alexislopez9355]

During the 4th Crusade, Crusaders sacked the Christian city of Zara even though the Pope told them not to. The Pope excommunicated Crusaders over this incident.

[@CzechsTeaNine]

But they don't want to listen to it. It's because it is against their own narrative.

[@cyfi55]

Right, however, their were 3 crusades before that. Also, the Pope rescinded the ex-communication on non-venetian members.

[@alexislopez9355]

@@cyfi55 The Crusaders were pressured into attacking Zara to pay the Venetians. The first three crusades were reasonable reactions to Muslim agression and expansion. What's your point?

[@bliss_gore5194]

You forgot the part where venice somehow got the crusaders to sack constantinople, a holy city

[@ronselgrath1235]

The Fourth destroyed Constantinople and placed a Latin on the Roman throne. This action and the following Latin empire is still an issue with Eastern Christians.

[@jamestown8398]

"Killed or driven out" The narrative I learned in college was that the Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid Caliphates allowed Christians and Jews to live in their realms. Granted, it was second-class citizens who had to pay an extra jizya tax simply for not being Muslim, they were allowed to live there. Conversion to Islam happened gradually, over centuries, and even then, wasn't complete - there are still Christain communities in the Middle East who trace their roots back to before the Rashidun conquests. Interestingly, this comparative tolerance was practiced by both the Crusader Kingdoms in the Levant (Jerusalem, Antioch, Tripoli) and by the Kingdom of Sicily under the de Hauteville dynasty, leading to the unique cultural blending in the latter territory. ... But altogether, I think this is an excellent video. I always look forward to new content by this channel.

[@thekingshussar1808]

Most atrocities were done by the Seljuk Turks and religious extreme. But the authorities started to stop this with Saladin having a deal with Richard, granting pilgrims tolerance and protection.

[@kermitthethinker1465]

The "system" that Muslims use it's created to stagnate the growth of Christianity since it doesn't allow to increase their numbers and creating just enough tolerance so they don't rebel,it's system that encourages conversion to Islam,while don't allowing to do the opposite of converting a Muslim,it will eventually change the balances demographics while the "privileges" the Christians have like don't having to serve the armies it's just do disarm the Christians so they can't fight back.

[@lilswan7464]

There is much I don't know, but to add to your comment what I do, similarly in the Iberian Peninsula there were Muslim communities within the Christian kingdoms during this time Iberian Christians in general had a bit of a different perspective compared to the ones further North who didn't have as much contact with Muslims before they went to war (which is not to say there was no violence of course, they were at war after all, but the mindset was kind of different)

[@lapis_lazuli578]

Regarding the jizya - muslims would have to pay a annual charitable contribution (called zakat) that non-muslims wouldn't pay

[@snorry84]

@@lapis_lazuli578 According to what you write, it seems to me that the first were paying in celebration of their faith and to support their own religion, the latter to avoid being persecuted.

[@mister_i9245]

The 1st Crusade was originally a call for aid by the Roman Empire to restore lands in Anatolia, the crusaders betrayed the Romans and took land for their own, against their agreement with the Romans.

[@m_d1905]

The Frankish Crusaders were terrible and typically went against most papal bulls.

[@domo3699]

*Greeks Roman title is LARP

[@kermitthethinker1465]

"betrayed",when Romans abandoned them at Antioch.

[@davidfinch7407]

Well, the first city that the Crusaders attacked decided to secretly surrender to the Byzantines, despite the fact that the Crusaders had done all the work to siege the city. This denied the Crusaders their opportunity to loot the city, which is how the soldiers of that era got paid. Compounded by the fact that the Byzantines promised significant support to the Crusade which never materialized, the Crusaders felt that they were betrayed first. Of course, if they turned over all the land they conquered in the Middle East to Byzantium, the Muslims would have just taken it back when the Crusaders went home; The Byzantines were so weak that they needed the Crusaders to fight for them. The only way to protect the Byzantines was if the Crusaders were able set up their own Kingdom in the Holy Land, which took the brunt of Muslim aggression for hundreds of years.

[@kermitthethinker1465]

@@davidfinch7407 exactly,Alexios Komnenos didn't inform the crusaders about Niceae surrender negotiation and even though he gave treasure of the city as compensation,the damage was already done. Also didn't help that one of main crusaders was one of Alexios main enemies and when Crusaders were besieged at Antioch and their relief army didn't come,they betrayed the Crusaders that then started to conquer for themselves since they had previously surrendered all the land to Byzantium.

[@anglophone412]

Well I am impressed by your conviction. An important note is that the most infamous detail of the first crusade, the sack of Jerusalem, has been shown by modern historians to be a complete exaggeration. I should also note that the kingdom of Jerusalem survived as long as it did mostly because the Muslims saw value in Christian presence in the Levant. It was only the rise of the bloody Mamluks that brought the kingdom to its knees

[@macnosmutano4849]

Jonathan Riley-Smith is considered to have been one of the foremost authorities on the Crusades. If you want to get a thorough understanding of them I definitely recommend reading "The Crusades: A History". It is such a wonderful book.

[@theguyver4934]

Wait i'm confused is he saying that all the christian achivments like a science or renaissance were only possable because of islam

[@didoburns]

As accessible as some of this information are, its painful people even Christians think the crusades were about Christians going to disturb peaceful Muslims lands. Well done Fr!!

[@gapps2611]

And the fun fact is the so called muslim lands were the places where gospel first proclaimed, and cradle of Christianity

[@lauranichols945]

Thanks, Father Casey. This, the Inquisition and Galileo are probably the top things cited by my atheist/agnostic friends when they rail against religion in general and the church in particular.

[@Emcron]

i love church history analyses! more please!

[@theguyver4934]

Wait i'm confused is he saying that all the christian achivments like science or renaissance were only possable because of islam

[@murilostrapasson7016]

Greetings from Brazil, For people of iberian descent the crusades were really important, because without them we would not be christian. Deus vult!

[@Ziiphyr]

Deus Vult!

[@abramorozco6547]

Based. Deus vuelt!

[@HighKingTurgon]

This is a wonderful and important video. The sooner we stop wringing our hands over stuff we didn't do, the sooner we can start wringing over what we have done.

[@theguyver4934]

Wait i'm confused is he saying that all the christian achivments like art or renaissance were only possable because of islam

[@HighKingTurgon]

@@theguyver4934 I would argue that it was through open cultural exchange that the Renaissance was achieved in the specific way it was; that seemed to be fr. Casey's thesis, as well

[@lancelot1953]

Thank you so much Father Casey for situating the Crusades in the context they were conducted. I studied at a Seminary (1960s, Jesuits) where we had history classes alongside our religious training as to orient us in the context that these events took place. This made it so much easier for us "nuggets" to understand how Catholicism "matured" and came to be what it is today. Thank you so much for all the research, time and effort you are investing in teaching us God's message, Ciao, L (Veteran) PS: I do miss some of the traditional Tridentine mass practices... but I am old(er) and have to "get with the times". L

[@cardboardcapeii4286]

No you don’t “get with the times” that’s the heresy of modernism which has strongly been condemned by Popes pius IX and Pius X

[@cml2176]

Thank you Fr. Casey.

[@anglophone412]

Also important to note that first crusade came at the request of the Greek Emperor Komnenos. The Greeks were the legitimate heirs of the Roman east. You hinted to this fact, but I think it is important to bolster the first crusades legitimacy.

[@marvalice3455]

What does it mean for a state to be a "legitimate heir" to another state? That seems weird to me.

[@anglophone412]

@@marvalice3455 It gives further legitimacy. As in Jerusalem was the rightful domain of the Roman east. I said the the Greeks were the heirs to the Roman state because there is a direct line from Constantine to Komnenos.

[@kyrptonite1825]

Well, we know Jerusalem was originally Christian land that was invaded, and that also Christian lands in the East were being taken, and that the Emperor asked the West for help, so the Crusaders came

[@laurakumar3227]

Superb. Excellent. I learnt about crusades. Yes as you have said there are so many misconceptions. This is what made me sad to know that my growing up in the Catholic faith never taught me violence but fostered a spiritual strength based on love for God and neighbour. A force which comes only from God to do good works. I looked for authentic sources to read about the Crusades. I did get it and found so many truths. God is obsessed about his creation. We know it from His Word The Bible. Thanks so much. The Christians just wanted to be allowed to worship at the Holy Land where Jesus lived, died and was resurrected. Jesus O Jesus have mercy on us and bless our priests the messengers of The Good News. Thank you Jesus.

[@lukasmakarios4998]

One of the many reasons people don't approve of the Crusades (at least the ones that made it to the Holy Land) is that they haven't studied their history. The Muslims and Byzantines had been fighting for centuries, and Muslim pirates were strangling trade, and taking slaves, all over the Mediterranean. With Islam on the rise, the Crusades were a short episode to redress their wrongs and establish a partial balance. (Yes, compared to Muslim aggression, two centuries was a short episode.) The sad part was only that we couldn't keep the Holy Lands, from Turkey to Alexandria, permanently in Christian hands.

[@jbacstobasics7119]

Thank you father for clearing the history of misconceptions about Christian Crusade. ❤

[@MaximusReynosus]

Something that always fascinated me from the moment I got to know it was Heraclius Crusade against the Persians at the beginning of the Middle Ages. That single war alone left both empires, Persian and Roman, in such a state they couldn't defend against the first Muslims coming out from Arabia.

[@franchesco7757]

Gotta admit that there was something kinda cool about the pope having to incite warring Catholic Europe into a single cause.

[@toddfraser3353]

The easy was to temporarily solve internal conflict, is to have an external one. It doesn't solve the issue of the internal conflict, but you can prolonged it enough to be someone's else's problem.

[@MartyMcK]

The sooner we realise that all religions and political institutions have both good and evil people within them, the better off we will all be.

[@annasahlstrom6109]

We got to watch Terry Jones' series about The Crusades in high school theology. I loved it.

[@heathert8895]

Great video as always, Father! Would it be possible for you to cite your sources? As a homeschooling Mom, I am always looking for quality sources to share with my children.

[@batmaninc2793]

You can try Catholic Answers for some direction in that way, too.

[@mtle8]

You may want to check the books below: The Glory of the Crusades by Steve Weidenkopf The Crusades - The World's Debate by Hilaire Belloc

[@batmaninc2793]

@@mtle8 Weidenkopf? The *Glory* of the Crusades? *[Holy Roman Empire intensifies]*

[@Matth_M]

Based Catholic education without propaganda and history deformation

[@Chibblechabble]

Let’s learn from actual history. Man is flawed. God is eternal. God bless you all and your loved ones. Give them a hug and let’s live as Lord Christ commanded us to.

[@susannah1066]

Father Casey you should do a video about the misconceptions of the Church killing witches.

[@BudLightBeerOfStarCommand]

Have you ever thought about a video that addresses the Native American conquest and residential schools? There’s a lot of controversy surrounding that, as well as what the Spaniards and Columbus did

[@marylinramos4300]

This is an excellent recommendation!! I hope Fr. Casey sees this.

[@odanobunaga7584]

The Inca and Aztec empires were some of the last great empires of antiquity, they had their golden hour but they were behind the times the pendulum on the clock has to swing back and forth, any great superpower would have conquered and converted backward people, Catholics Protestants Jews Muslims Buddhist whoever had great power would naturally conquer undiscovered lands with a weaker people that were behind the times, secular powers wanted to conquer new lands their hearts were filled with adventure greed and bloodlust, stealing other people's land is not Christian but spreading the gospel across the four corners of the world is Christian, names like Columbus Cortes and Pizarro are seen as heroes by Latin Catholics and seen as enemies by American Indians, as a Hispanic Catholic I think these men are heroes not Saints, what they did was very heroic but not saintly, I think the conquistadors and the Inca warriors are both heroes of human history.

[@odanobunaga7584]

And the residential schools were just teaching western mannerisms to a conquered people, it's not good or bad it just is, there was no going back these people we're already conquered the losers at that time had to obey the winners and that came with teaching the new generation of Native American kids Western mannerisms and how to read and write, I myself cry and sympathize for the noble savage but at the same time history must advance on its natural course, as in can say it would have happened anyway, the Native American peoples have every right to protest against what happened but the Latin Catholic and Christian people must honor their heroes as well.

[@sebastiendeschamps3135]

@@odanobunaga7584 you are completely correct. Thank you brother in Christ.

[@odanobunaga7584]

@@sebastiendeschamps3135 Your welcome my brother! ✝️✌️

[@David-Rymer]

I'm gonna use this video as a lanching platform to get to know the crusades. people love to use this as an argument so its for the best if i knew what they were really about

[@Nickl1610]

There is a good video called "why the crusades were actually awesome"

[@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577]

There's the youtube channel "Real Crusades History" which is great for that

[@mathematicalcoffee2750]

There's a good podcast run by an Australian professor called History of the Crusades that goes into them in a lot of detail, I really enjoyed it

[@rolandquilente9318]

@@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577every time history is preceded by “real”, you should doubt it it’s authenticity, often than not, sources would be biased and just plain hearsay BS.

[@joannebywaters4154]

Again, so good to hear this teaching!!

[@RJLupin-xl6yf]

I’m not Catholic but it’s funny how so many other Christians will talk bad about the crusades, not understanding that if the ottoman empire continued to press forward in their conquest of Europe, then none of these religious alternatives would have ever been born in the first place. RIP my man Vlad Tepes.

[@mariareginarosaria8927]

Really good! Thank you, brother!

[@hollistantang9469]

I love this history contents... Well, it isn't surprising for me because the more I read about history, the closer picture I have towards the facts... Even though I am not surprised by the facts regarding the misconceptions, I believe I should appreciate this video for revealing the truth to those that didn't really know about it. Love your video and gonna subs to your channel once I finished typing this message

[@CanaaniteConifer]

There are some points I would like to add. You could have mentioned the siege of Jerusalem. It is the most brutal aspect of the crusades (the first). The residents of Jerusalem experienced unknown brutality. Even the Christians. I don‘t assume that you don‘t know this fact, but I would have mentioned it. Another important aspect is the rise of the Seljuk Empire. These turkic tribes conquered huge parts of the middle east. They conquered parts of Anatolia that were greek/byzantine at this time(and for many centuries. Many Christians were killed or forced to flee. They conquered the Holy Land as well. These turkic tribes didn’t allow Christians to male a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. That condition was pretty new, as other muslim rulers were relativly open to christian pilgrims. And it was the byzantine Emporer who asked the Pope for help. But I share the core of your message to be honest. The crusades were no more or less justified than any wars started by the Muslims at that time. I would even say it was justified to some degree. And I‘m very thankful that you mentioned the fate of many Christians of the region. Let‘s never forget that the first centers of the Christian faith were in the middle east. Very important message, so a big Thanks for your work! God Bless 🙏 (sorry for any mistakes I made. English is not my first language.)

[@m_d1905]

There is so much from this time that many don't know. Many people don't know or realize that war in ancient times was typically a scorched earth proposition on both sides of said war.

[@TheHonestCatholic]

Father can you please explain Holy Water, Holy Oil, and Blessed Salt.

[@marvalice3455]

They are sacramentals. They are blessed to achieve particular effects, but the power is always in God, not that actually item. You cannot buy or sell them, if someone tries to sell them to you they are illegitimate. But you can buy the base items.

[@darthlatitude2105]

​@@marvalice3455 What are the effects of holy water and oil?

[@TheHonestCatholic]

@@marvalice3455 what do you use holy oil and holy salt for?

[@6578981]

Side note. Not only in Spain, Portugal as well. Portugal, not being part of Spain 😂

[@jamestown8398]

Moreover, Spain didn't exist as one country until after the end of the Reconquista. It was born out of a union of several smaller Iberian Kingdoms such as Castille, Aragon, and Navarra.

[@TJDious]

*Portuguese rage intensifies*

[@HoldYourBreat4]

@@jamestown8398 spot on… my family is Castilian but mostly Portuguese

[@roboparks]

Portugal wasn't a country yet. And Spain did not Exist either . The Kingdom of Astures -Visigoth (718 ad) (Arianism). Which later Became the Kingdom of Leon (Catholic) . Then Broke into 2 Kingdoms of Castile and the Galicia . Then through the Reconquista Castile begin taking slowing the Iberian Peninsula (It Took about 400 of years ) . Aragon was form by The Franks ( Under Carolingian rule ) That's why those people have a different Language today . Spain didn't really become a country till 1492. It was known as the Kingdom of Castile (1065- The Duchy is much older 1035?) . Kingdom of Portugal 1139 ad formed during the Reconquista.

[@HoldYourBreat4]

@@roboparks precisely

[@youraveragetemplar5810]

You just earned a new subscriber for this great explanation.

[@katsantos3068]

I pray that other priests, pastors, teachers and even politicians listen and learn from you. God bless you Father🙏❤️

[@Kaiser86]

As a PhD student working on Crusades you are mostly right. The biggest mistake you have made, though, is that you are perpetuating the same propaganda that was used at the time to justify the Crusades when you say that the Muslim expansion led to the killing or expulsion of Christians and Jews. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islamic lands at the time were relatively tolerant of Christians and Jews. They allowed them to continute their worship against an extra tax known as jizya (although they were exempt from paying zakat). The lie of widespread anti-Christian violence was propaganda, it was part of an ideology, especially from around the 5th Crusade, that sought a unification of Christian forces, even heretics if need be, especially from "within" the Islamic world. As Christianity was hemorrhaging lands to Islam, with the loss of Jerusalem and Antioch, the propaganda turned to "liberating" Christians. This is compounded, I think, by your saying that Muslims invaded otherwise peaceful people. Again, this is incredibly manipulative. The speed by which North Africa was conquered was also partially due to the fractured nature of Christianity. Within what was the see of Carthage, roughly, there were many conflicting sects, shifting often from one to the other as the powers changed. Carthage was rife with Arians during the Vandal period, Eastern rite when the Byzantines took it, throughout the whole time, there was a strong opposition of Donatists. These fractures caused many conflicts and a lot of violence. It was absolutely not a peaceful place. The fractured nature may have aided the Muslim conquest, as they faced limited unified resistance. I agree that history is more complex than polemics. But what you said there is straight out of 13th century polemics.

[@lapis_lazuli578]

This was interesting, thanks for taking the time to write it! The idea that Muslims were expelling Jews and Christians sounded a bit suspect to me... You may never see this comment, but if you do, do you have any reading material you would recommend?

[@homerj806]

Don't forget that many of the killing didn't occur in the Middle East. During the First Crusade, crusaders murdered thousands of Jews in Germany. They also murdered thousand of Orthodox Christians in both the Balkan and in Asia Minor.

[@BreakingInTheHabit]

You say the word “murder” a few times. I don’t think that’s appropriate. This was a war. Both sides were fighting. That’s not murder.

[@sarawer]

@@BreakingInTheHabit The Jews were not fighting! They were murdered plain and simple. I normally like your takes but if you are gunna downplay the genocide that happened in the Rhineland I can't abide by that.

[@brandongray5043]

​@@BreakingInTheHabit so persecution of Jews in Europe was fine because a war was happening?

[@homerj806]

@@BreakingInTheHabit Wasn't the Crusade about fighting the Muslims and liberate the Christian territories. The Jews in Germany (Holy Roman Empire) didn't do anything to the Crusaders. Their only crime was being a Jew. Bishops in a few cities even put themselves at risk to protect the Jews. Adalbert, the Bishop of Worms hid many Jews in his palace but the crusaders still broke in and murdered all Jews inside. Note that this happened inside the Holy Roman Empire, Christian lands. Who were the Crusaders at war with? Those same crusaders sacked and murdered Christians in Hungary, the Balkans and Asia Minor. Were the crusaders at war with Hungarian and Balkan Christians. I don't remember the pope calling a Crusade against them. Again these are Christian Crusaders killing Christian civilians. This not war. They were not yet fighting Muslims. That was murder of unarmed Christian and Jewish civilians for the sole purpose of stealing or because they can kill whoever they want think they will be absolved of all sins because they were on a "crusade". But that was not the pope's intent. It was kill Muslims in occupied lands, liberate Christians in those lands and free Jerusalem. Not murder people in Christian lands for the sake of murder.

[@seamusogdonn-gaidhligarain2745]

@@BreakingInTheHabit I don’t see how killing Jewish civilians who aren’t part of an organised, military resistance to the Crusades isn’t murder. Father, you are some one I admire greatly, your work has been one of my biggest influences in returning to God, but with all due respect, is this really the hill you want to die on? Is this the way of Christ, to sweep under the rug pogroms that the Church itself has condemned?

[@mikewagar8631]

This is the BEST channel of its type. Fantastic job Father.

[@GranMaese]

Great video, Father Casey!! And a much needed one. Catholicism in Focus rules.

[@kevinrattigan6535]

Great video Father Casey. A lot of the points you made are unfortunately not objectively covered in schools. I learned a couple things I didn’t know about the crusades from your analysis.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Thank you for spreading awareness against these pervasive misconceptions! They’ve been used as a bashing weapon in the most ludicrous manner by purposeful bad actors who barely know history.

[@andzejkozak7297]

Never forget history.

[@goukeban6197]

Look, I'm no catholic, but I wish you guys were a lot more on board with another Crusade.

[@delvingeorge2807]

Niceley put! Remembering you and Praying for you and the Holy Father Pope Francis who is sick! 🙏🏻

[@hesoswag1697]

The 1st crusade was probably the best and most justified. The 4th was (in my opinion) the most detrimental.

[@majorianus8055]

1st crusades is chaotic good because of the sack they did in Jerusalem killing Muslims. But. 2-3 crusades are justified. The 4th is the worst. But the crusades of Frederick is also good because he settled it diplomatically. The Varna Crusade is also lawful good.

[@HoldYourBreat4]

THANK YOU!! I just had to reteach my daughter about the Crusades and the Spanish Reconquista because her teacher is literally calling Out Church and evil empire that tortures and steals land

[@robertlukacs4954]

I began studying the Middle Ages after learning about the Crusades.

[@Azmarith]

Have you thought about doing a review of the movie "Kingdom of Heaven"?

[@tylerhill9510]

This isnt what i was expecting. Well done 👍

[@OnCoated]

We have been told in school how bad "the crusades" were. I now realise how wrong my teachers were

[@elisabetta611]

Ahhhhhhhh, I missed CiF so much. Excellent insight, Father Casey!!

[@DovidGershom]

He flubbed on one point: The Christians were not "killed or driven out" of Muslim lands, they were taxed until the converted to Islam! Also intermarriage greatly reduced Christian numbers.

[@mothermoose4952]

One more thing to add to about the first crusade, as you said it was not unprovoked and was a direct response to the sultanate of rum being formed. It lead to fears that the Byzantine empire would fall thereby opening up Europe to yearly jihad and more Muslim conquest

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🗡️ Common misconceptions about the Crusades, often criticized as unprovoked attacks led by power-hungry churchmen. 00:56 🌍 The Crusades were a series of varied expeditions spanning nearly 500 years, with different motives, leaders, and outcomes. 02:19 🤴 The Catholic Church's control during the Middle Ages was not absolute; secular rulers played significant roles in the Crusades. 03:40 🧒 The misconception of children being called to fight in the Crusades is exaggerated, with few accounts of such events. 05:05 ⚔️ The idea of unprovoked Christian aggression overlooks centuries of Muslim conquests and the reclaiming of Christian territories. 07:01 🏞️ The Crusades were primarily about land and holy places, not a universal religious conflict. 08:27 🤝 Acknowledging complexity: Crusades had instances of conflict and cooperation between Christians and Muslims. 08:53 💭 History is nuanced; while acknowledging past sins, it's important to recognize and challenge misconceptions. Made with HARPA AI

[@abyssimus]

Protty here but I usually get other non-Catholics to nuance their view on the crusades by explaining the fourth and sixth ones. Fourth crusade: Constantinople (important to remember they weren't Catholic) asked for help against Muslim incursion. They said they'd pay but then changed their mind right around the time the crusaders started feeling too lazy to get all the way to Jerusalem -- so the crusaders just sacked Orthodox Constantinople instead. Sixth crusade: my absolute favorite, and the way I explain it usually gets non-Catholics agreeing that was a legitimately good crusade. Holy Roman Emperor Fredrick II excusably missed the deadline for the fourth crusade, so the fifth crusade was more-or-less held as a do-over for him. He missed that deadline because he just didn't give a-- uh, care, and so the sixth crusade was just him strolling into Jerusalem and asking the Caliph "look, security here is expensive, right? What if I handle that in exchange for respecting religious freedom?" And it worked so well that people started to speculate that he was the Antichrist.

[@a_random_catholic]

“How should Catholics feel about them today” we should feel proud that our ancestors were defending the weak from oppression from a violent religion after 400 years of oppression

[@SteelWalrus]

Ironically, 1812 and Vietnam were closer together than the first and last crusades, iirc.

[@christianali5431]

The most important thing you need to remember about the crusades involved events that are actually transpired before them, and even before Jesus was born. The Roman Empire spent centuries without Christianity, with many of them refusing to worship Gods in general, and they still had the incentive to Crusade into several parts of the world and plunder it for themselves. Religion did not make them do this, and religion did not make them stop doing it.

[@exuberant6819]

Hi Father, can you make a detailed explanation about the crusades and also about the Knights Templar.

[@fallenkingdom-zd8xh]

There’s a channel called Bread Boys. It’s great for giving quick and accurate explanations of the Crusades.

[@BjornBear21]

Ignorance is the reason spout untruths. As people say the Crusaders were on a religious crusade to only convert others are like when people say that the American Civil War was completely over slavery. I have documentation from my family that states most fought for states rights, that’s all most fought for because we were too poor to own slaves. Also when Catholics say Freemasonry is a religion and we worship idols and more nonsense. I can say that’s false because I WAS (I left for other reasons) one and we never once worshiped anything but God. Plain and simple. Only ignorant people speak on things they were taught instead of truly finding out firsthand for themselves.

[@SoleaGalilei]

It strikes me that what you say about the common soldiers not really knowing or caring much about the enemy is probably true of many wars.

[@tusk70]

Ein sehr wichtiges Video! Vielen Dank!

[@VABJMJ]

Very good video

[@xSHIELDBREAKERx82]

War does not determine who is right; only who is left.

[@alwindsouza6354]

St John Damascus Syria converted mosque now called umar mosque

[@urbanx3922]

Thanks for teaching me something!

[@jasonl6130]

Some issues with your video: 1. The fall of the holy land and Egypt happened almost 600 years before the 1st Crusade. While war between Christians and Muslims were common, no European lord was enraged over the fall of Jerusalem. 2. You forgot the Byzantines. The Byzantine defeat at Manzikert and the loss of Anatolia to the Seijuks is what actually motivated Emp. Alexios Kommenos to ask the west for help. The Pope took that request and weaponized it. 3. You briefly touched on the Papacy's political dilemma in the middle ages, but failed to tie this back in as a major motivation for the Crusades. After all, if the lords of Europe had a common enemy, they'd spend less time attacking each other. Otherwise, good video!

[@johncox2284]

The 4th Crusade went off the rails when they decided to take a little detour to Constantinople, which at that time was one of the richest cities in the world and the centre of the Byzantine Empire. Many historians peg the year 1204 as the beginning of the end of the Byzantine Empire because they had been so weakened by the 4th Crusade.

[@Chrysostomus_17]

Well, the Crusaders were goaded into going by an ex-prince who was exiled from the city. Also it happened in the context of the Byzantines slaughtering the Latin Catholics of Constantinople. 4th Crusade was more complicated than just "crusaders were very bad and sacked the city for no reason."

[@johncox2284]

@@Chrysostomus_17 True story. History is a lot more complicated than it seems on the surface. The Byzantine Empire had already been shrinking due to the Islamic conquests.

[@eagleswings5693]

Please do the Spanish Inquisition?

[@BreakingInTheHabit]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3KaamSjZ9KZg9E

[@TarekHabib]

such a poor way to justify the bloody greedy crusades!

[@BreakingInTheHabit]

Who's justifying the crusades. Certainly not me. Did you watch the video?

[@jamesfitzgerald1684]

He's not justifying the Crusades. He's just saying they aren't a special kind of violence that occurred in history that was any different than the violence that has always occurred in history. He also pointed to the Arabic conquests of North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. The conquering of Christian territory. Many of the crusades were fought to bring former Christian strongholds back under the banner of Christianity. Mostly land and territory disputes. The Arabs were the colonizers first. Remember that. Also don't forget that the Moors attempted to invade France to continue their conquest. The Ottomans attempted to conquer Eastern Europe. Back and forth fighting over territory.

[@MizanQistina]

@@jamesfitzgerald1684 Funny, those former Byzantium/Rome territories are eastern Orthodox, but the western Catholic who call for Crusades. Don't tell me that the Orthodox and Catholics are friends, they are not friends 😂

[@jamesfitzgerald1684]

@@MizanQistina Did I say that? Certainly, they had a better relationship they either had with Muslims.

[@MizanQistina]

@@jamesfitzgerald1684 During the whole Crusade era - Muslims and Orthodox are friends - Catholic and Orthodox are enemies - Muslim and Catholic are enemies - Orthodox and Jews are neutral - Muslims and Jews are neutral - Catholic and Jews are enemies - Protestant and Muslims are neutral - Protestant and Orthodox are neutral - Protestant and Jews are neutral - Catholic and Protestant are enemies In short Catholic is everyone enemy

[@nathanngumi8467]

Word. Make true history great again!

[@virginiamorris92]

I can’t believe I wasn’t taught the truth!!!! Thirty years on this planet being misinformed 😤

[@patrickdebrosse3923]

Hi, Fr. Casey! I'm a professional historian who publishes on the crusades in academic journals and teaches about them at the undergraduate level. I agree with some of your points more than others, and hope you don't mind a few of my thoughts on the video! Myth #1: A really great point. Just to add to what you say, the crusades remained common up until (roughly) the Reformation. Some vestiges of it lasted to the 19th century. And you could make the argument that some of the less famous crusades (such as those against the pagans of northern Europe) had a longer-lasting effect on the world than the more famous crusades. Myth #2: You're right that we modern people often imagines that during the Middle Ages, the papacy and the bishops were more powerful than they were in reality. This holds true for the crusades as well. But I think that you have let medieval Catholicism off the hook a bit too much through your emphasis on the role of secular rulers in guiding the crusades. Remember that for medieval Christians, kings held a sort of sacramental authority, and could absolutely be regarded as spokespeople for the Church (albeit in a different way than were the clergy). Think of Louis IX: a crusader king/saint. Moreover, a lot of the abuses undertaken by secular rulers were well-known to the clergy, who either turned a blind eye to cruelty, or else actively encouraged it. And the papacy took steps to exert control over the crusades, with a great deal of success. A papal legate accompanied the First Crusade (and many others) to oversee strategy and priorities. The papacy invented new forms of taxation and diplomacy to force crusades to conform to its vision. The papacy monopolized the power to call for major crusades, decided the policies around indulgences, and excommunicated disobedient crusaders such as the Fourth Crusaders and Frederick II. If popes had power over anything, it was the crusades! Myth #3: I think you summarize the issue very well. Many of the pueri surely meant to fight, but most of them seem to have returned home without making it out of Western Europe. Myth #4: I really think you should be more careful with this one. While there are some scholars who have spoken about the First Crusade as a "defensive war," most scholars would point out that the Islamic conquests to which you refer happened many centuries before the First Crusade. To the extent that the First Crusade was provoked by Muslims, the provocation happened in modern-day Turkey, not Syria, and threatened Greek Christians, not the Catholic Franks who ultimately took the cross. The diplomacy was complicated (Urban II certainly thought that a threat to Christians anywhere deserved a united response), but the point is that the early medieval Islamic conquests were not, by the 1090s, a threat to anyone living in France, Germany, or Italy. The truth is that whatever the injustices of the Muslim conquests of Syria, Egypt, northwest Africa, etc. (and I would argue that there were a lot), the first crusaders themselves were influenced in large part by a dislike for Muslims and a desire to engage in proto-colonialist activities. Plus we shouldn't forget that once the first crusaders won, they treated their fellow Christians in the east to a great deal of contempt and rough realpolitik (the first crusader state was actually created in Christian Edessa, where the crusaders launched a coup against the Christian ruler). Myth #5: A lot of what you say here is true. The indifference of most Christians to the theology of Islam, the focus on holy land over specific enemies, the presence of Christian-Muslim friendships - all correct. You do play down the strength of anti-Muslim sentiment a bit too much in my opinion. Just read the Song of Roland, or other similar literature, and you can see how strongly some Christians felt in their antipathy towards Muslims. Another point: even if crusaders were uninterested in religious debate with Muslims, religion remained a prime motive. You say so yourself: it's the indulgence (and similar spiritual benefits) that kept people going back to the crusades again and again and again. You clearly did good research for your video - I just care deeply enough about getting this history right to offer these critiques! One final thought: many of your commenters recommend the works of Jonathan Riley-Smith. They're right: he is in the running for the greatest historian of the crusades ever, and his textbook is my favorite for teaching. Catholics might also be interested in his famous essay, "Crusading as an Act of Love," which offers the (depressing!) thought that the Catholic theology of love can lead naturally into violence.

[@franzgrim]

Yes, all correct, thanks! Also, there was the bit about how the Muslim conquest expelled all non Muslims from conquered territories, that-s just not the case, am I right? Lots of Christians and Jews still lived there often unmolested, although they had to pay a special tax at times? Also, yes, the Papacy could have stopped it at any time essentially, but it did the opposite. It's just indefensible, the whole concept of crusade, I think.

[@patrickdebrosse3923]

Totally right,@@franzgrim! I somehow missed the line about the Islamic Conquests ending in mass killings/expulsions. As you say, that was not the case. The dhimmis (Christians, Jews, and certain other protected religious minorities) typically paid the jizya (the tax you mention) in exchange for the right to live in Muslim territories and follow their own religions. Although the dhimmis faced a lot of intolerance and discrimination (and some persecutions in certain times and places), the Muslim armies of the Early Middle Ages did not displace the original inhabitants of conquered territory in order to introduce a new population. Instead, most people below the level of the elite remained Christian or Jewish for a long time after the Islamic Conquests. It was the descendants of those Jews and Christians who converted to Islam slowly over time, sometimes in response to social/economic/political pressures, sometimes because of a genuine sense of conviction. Even by the time of the crusades, huge populations of Christians dwelt in places like Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. Popes encouraged crusades time and time again. The only occasions that I can think of that popes tried to stop crusades were when the crusaders attacked other Christians (the Fourth Crusade), the crusade's leader fell under excommunication (Frederick II), or crusades in one theater threatened to draw crusaders from another important crusade (Spain sometimes drained support from Jerusalem, and vice versa).

[@patrickdebrosse3923]

On a separate follow-up, @BreakingInTheHabit you might be interested in two recent books by prominent scholars on the Franciscans and the crusades. One is John Tolan's Saint Francis and the Sultan: The Curious History of a Christian-Muslim Encounter. The second is Christopher MacEvitt's The Martyrdom of the Franciscans: Islam, the Papacy, and an Order in Conflict.

[@bojangles2492]

The fact they are lumped together and called crusades is ridiculous in itself, separate military campaigns over an almost 500 year span all with separate reasons for being fought, all instigated by different leaders.

[@Restless318]

thank you for info father

[@EricMcLuen]

Fairly accurate but it did not reference the Albigensian Crusade which was against other Christians, founded the Inquisition and the Papacy was directly involved as it vainly attempted to assert its temporal power.

[@treson8640]

Wow, based video from Father Casey . Thank you ❤

[@danilocatania5700]

When people ask me, a Sicilian, about the crusades, I reply ,what would you do if a group of people started going into your street and taken over every house, in the case of the Pope, now they re almost next door to you, wouldn't you move somewhere safer, like Avignone, and organize people likeminded to go at the root of the problem

[@Youhnanbinzacharia]

Thanks father.

[@kevinwillems8720]

I can't help but notice. You don't have a bibliography in the description to back up your claims.

[@betsywilliams3666]

Could you please share your sources?

[@fernandopaz5201]

Great Video

[@helwrecht1637]

The first crusade was an act of self defense. End of discussion

[@majorianus8055]

Even 1100 crusade, the 2nd, the third, the Crusade of Varna.

[@MizanQistina]

Self defense in Jesus way is " "... if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)

[@GalaxyCatPlays]

@@MizanQistina Agreed but this doesn't mean that Jesus said willingly die if your being presucuted :)

[@MizanQistina]

@@GalaxyCatPlays That exactly what it means, kingdom of God is in heaven, not on earth. The only way to reach heaven is death.

[@GalaxyCatPlays]

@@MizanQistina No not death but Jesus who deafeated death.............

[@EndaMRacing]

Hi Father how do you think the church should do to get more people to become priests and nuns into the church and also church attendance?

[@ryanpedersen6147]

I have the same question!

[@jamestown8398]

I'd be interested in hearing what Fr. Casey has to say about that too.

[@Anon.5216]

PRAY for more vocations. That is how we get more Priests etc.

[@marvalice3455]

You don't get more nuns and priests by holding workshops. You do it by praying, and living a holy life. We want devout people in those positions, who seek to put the Lord first, and serve him and his people. Not "ambiguous young people looking to have their voice heard"

[@thekingshussar1808]

Stop trying to be hip with irreverent Novus Ordo masses. Younger audiences are more attracted to traditional mass and the older catholic rites

[@londonsmith5348]

Another home run Fr. Casey.

[@timbuktu8069]

I love these historical correctives. Good stuff

[@TJDious]

"Muslims were living peacefully in their own land not bothering anyone" Om a national level has this ever been true?

[@stevetalbottofs236]

Excellent presentation Fr. Casey. The crusades were long and protracted with varying causes and degrees of success and propriety.

[@gtaliente]

I recommend y’all read others who are experts on the crusades, such as J Stephen Roberts. While I like this video, it leaves out some very important facts. The first crusade was called specifically because Christians making pilgrimages to and living in the a Holy Land were being persecuted by the Seljuk Turks. Pope Urban sought to take back the Holy Land as a method of protection of these Christians. After the initial destruction of the Christian world in the Middle East and North Africa (which Fr, Casey correctly points out) nothing happened for several centuries until the Seljuk Turks came into power and started killing Christians.

[@petersclafani4370]

My heritage i found out that my ancestors recorded at the time were crusaders and members of knights templar

[@Sixer88]

Thank you for explaining

[@eamonwick]

Excellent. We can’t let these lies pervert the truth any more

[@ziontours5893]

I would be interested in hearing your take on the orders of knights established during the Crusades, eg. the Templars, Hospitalers, who were at the same time monks and soldiers. P.S. The Moslems didn't kill nor expel non-fighting Christians and Jews. They are permitted, as people of the book, to live in Moslem countries on condition that they pay a special tax.

[@imnotgoodwithnamesbruh6018]

That's a long way to say they were coerced to convert.