Crusades (Part II)

Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Twitter: / ryanmreeves Instagram: / ryreeves4
Website: www.gordonconwell.edu/academic...

[@SamIAmSXE]

The Byzantines didn't see themselves as the heirs to the Roman Empire. They WERE the Roman Empire. To the east, the Roman Empire never collapsed, like it did in the west. Constantinople was the capital of the empire. They never referred to themselves as "Byzantine", they saw themselves as Roman. That said. I just got into your channel and I love it. Very well researched and informative. Bravo!

[@mikeporro3311]

There are still people there now that call themselves Roman!

[@zalari]

Hi Dr. Reeves, I just wanted to take a moment to let you know how much I have been enjoying your videos. I am a documentary nut and I think your videos blow any of the typical TV documentaries out of the water!

[@eurosensazion]

Saladin was great warrior but I may be wrong but wasn't he Kurdish not Turkish.

[@DevilDaz17]

I'm Greek, and I have to add, that the modern view of the Fourth Crusade is very distorted, due to the writings of Steven Runciman(who was also cited in the video), who is widely known as an incredibly subjective writer, who also had ties with the occult. The sack of Constantinople happened due to a broken promise, and the people of the Byzantine Empire didn't really suffer much afterwards. It isn't as black and white as it is most commonly portrayed. Both sides were at fault.

[@hendricusderuijter9671]

as some one who isnt religious, i absolutely cannot stand when people blame religion for conflict in the world. these people must have never even been to school because i remember learning about the irreligious nazis and communists when i was only 14 or something

[@ryan82scott]

1:23- And don't forget that left turn at Albuquerque, doc!

[@gsmith5140]

Thanks for these lectures. Good stuff, clarity and truth.

[@benhayward2597]

I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the northern crusades against the Wends and some of the more curious crusades like the albigensian crusade.

[@chrisjpfaff314]

Interesting and informative. The Albigensian Crusade needs more fleshing out. And I think that you should pinpoint it to southern France rather than Switzerland. It was a bloody mess and really an effort to grab land, all in the name of God. The Cathars were slaughtered basically for nothing.

[@cyrusaugustus4640]

Great video, just can't believe you pronounced "Outre Mer" as "Out-remer"

[@RyanReevesM]

I do that for the lulz. :)

[@scrubs4everr]

Great lecture! Thank you

[@QuirlosCanto]

Excellent!

[@SamTheSubSaharan]

Thank you for saying the Crusades weren't based on the Bible! Important note!

[@johnbond4125]

Very nicely put together. My only comment would be that the word "Outremer" ought to be pronounced closer to 'Oot remare' than 'out reamer' as you have here.

[@Nathanwhodoyousay]

Great video! Agree with most of what you said, except for the end.

[@jajanesaddictions]

Ryan, I read sometime back that the offer was made to allow the jails be emptied, under certain circumstances, and let the criminals swell the rank of the Crusaders. In return, if they made it home, they were released from their prison terms and were then free. Is this true?

[@groszoh]

Hi Prof. Reeves, thank you for your lecture series, I find your choice of topics very gripping. While I appreciate that the episode of the Christian Crusades is very broad, I feel that the scope of your presentation is still somewhat limited, especially in view of the introduction you used for the presentation of this lecture, ie. the myth and misuse of the Crusades by modern politicians. Your presentation is overly Christiano-centric - maybe understandable given your theological background. Two glaring omissions are very striking to me. The first is the incredibly destructive nature of the popular Crusades within Western and Central Europe and not just the Byzantine Empire - notably the massacres of the Jewish communities in the path of movement of the various waves of Crusades (and other minorities) causing a serious weakening of the economic fabric of the kingdoms, the discrediting of the crusading ethos in those areas and the tragedy to those Jewish communities. Second is the crystallizing effect of the centuries of Christian aggression (as perceived by the Islamic world of the period). As much as the Christian world aggregated to confront the threat from the East, so the Muslim world was brought together to resist the boorish and uncouth foreign invaders from Western Europe. Still, while noting these points, I continue to enjoy your lectures and the thoughts they provoke regarding the historical context of Christian society in Europe, yours, Zohar S.

[@PereMersenne]

Outremer is pronounced Oo-tra-Mare, not Out-Reamer.

[@travismalone1985]

Great follow up! The only thing that you didn't bring up was the Investiture Crisis in the latter 11th century. It doesn't seem as pertinent in terms of conquering Holy lands, but it did separate secular vs. non-secular authority during this time. I'm curious as how this dictated what transpired in the following 100 or so years. What do you think?

[@groszoh]

Interesting point, as I understand it, the Crusades were a great diversion for both sides of the investiture conflict as it provided a cause for which the Papal influence and the Secular/Lay rulers could converge. Of course, there were also political motivations; the idle forces of the Kings could be given a spiritual outlet that, in turn, would not be pointed at the Popes in any political struggle. There is also the issue of Primogeniture. The first sons inherited the landed wealth, and the other sons, brought up as warriors, had no sources of income. There was a whole social class in Western Europe that was looking to take root in new conquered lands and legitimately acquire wealth and resources that were unavailable to them in Europe - an unemployed warrior class.

[@skaduskitai8721]

Thank you. I was always a bit curious what the heck happened in the fourth crusades. Btw Saladin allied with some crusader states while he fought for dominance in the region against other muslims. I think there even was a joint campaign in there at one time (atleast there was an invitation for a joint campaign but I don't remember if the crusader state in question followed through or which crusader state it was). It's not like all the wars or even most of the wars in the region were religiously motivated. Once the Abbasid empire began to crumble in the 10th century the area was rife with conflicts again, and the seljuk turks didn't exactly take over by the power of kind words. Anyway I'm always annoyed at popular misconceptions. And I'm not a believer. It just annoys me, because once you've paid even a neglible interest in learning history the idea of some supervillain pope or whatnot working out his grand master scheme behind the scenes is just ludicrus. History just isn't that neat, it's messy and complicated and much more interesting than the lazy "Blame the evil Pope/King/President/religion/whatever for everything" of popular imagination.

[@seanheath711]

Why are you a protestant? Thanks for the videos.

[@Elivasfq]

Well Jihad is an integral part of Islam. Assigning blame is really unnecessary - as the "Arab expansion" was a massive bloody and very successful Jihad. Only a christian will try to take blame for a war with defensive motives. The Nazis were never "anti-religious" as this video suggests.

[@lXlElevatorlXl]

+Elivasfq The Nazis were antireligious the only good religion is their ideology It was not well seen too name ur child christian names like Christian u could clear off that mistake if u added a germanic name and give ur other children german Names But the nazis knew that a huge part of the german population was very religious and they hated the influence of the church and the priests . So they never really can be open anti-religious , so they mixed they ideology with sacred language and founded a own church „Eine deutsche Kirche, ein deutsches Christentum ist Krampf. Man ist entweder Christ oder Deutscher. Beides kann man nicht sein." " u r a either christ or german . You can't be both" (shortened)

[@Elivasfq]

lXlElevatorlXl No they weren't. Most were not anti religious in any form or way. Some of them may have been. But the vast majority of Nazis, Hitler included, were christian. In any case, except for Bormann, the rest wanted either to keep the church or to make a new the old Nordic religion. So, most of the Nazis, even the extreme ones, were not antireligious by a long shot. "Gott Mit Uns!" or "God is with us" as was written on the belt buckles of the Nazi soldiers during the war.

[@Elivasfq]

lXlElevatorlXl I always meet the same allegation about Hitler being secretly "antireligious" though he, apparently, never told it to anyone, to the best of my knowledge. The Pope did prayed for Hitler for a long while, though. Himmler was probably one of those that wanted to create a Pagan religion for the Nazis. Not a very antireligious behavior. As far as I know, the only high ranking Nazi that was antireligious was Bormann. The fact that Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular were not apposed to the Nazi ideology, nor was the Nazi ideology, out right, opposed to Christianity, does not sit well with today's Christians. So they go out of their way to try and whitewash the faith, or at least distance it from Nazism in particular, and Fascism in general. But if you dig a bit, you still can discover the very unpleasant truth.

[@lXlElevatorlXl]

Elivasfq But it's fact that the most votes did not come from catholic people but the protestants And Hitler and the pope made this concordat

[@Elivasfq]

lXlElevatorlXl Yes. So?

[@lXlElevatorlXl]

What about the teutonic knights and their "crusade" in the east

[@jamesjefferson9228]

First off, I highly appreciate all of these videos. An amazing display of scholarship and teaching!! Thank you. However, I generally disagree with the analysis here. While Christians did commit atrocities and pursue political aims, which we should acknowledge, the general purpose of the Crusades was to restore historic Christendom against Islamic conquest. This was a noble goal which we should celebrate and embrace. I also disagree that we should apologize for evils done during the Crusades, and for that matter any crimes committed by others. The son should not bear the sins of his father. Each man must account for his own actions and his own actions alone.

[@SeanCStark]

Why...? Check out the new stuff about the old days in Turkey w/ Dr. Bill Warner on the islamic totalitarianism...

[@jkelly2478]

I see no violence to further the Kingdom in the Book of Acts. I am wondering if the bloodlust set off in the times of the Crusades is related to the Inquisition bloodlust which soon followed.

[@julianfitz806]

I like your lectures but I have a question: Do you have a problem with germans? 1. You say there were the orders created during the crusades but you forget the "The Order of The Teutonic Knights" (/German Order) and coneckted to them the crusades of the east 2. You talk about the third crusade but say that Babarossa is not importand (ok this can be agued sinse he died on the marge) 3. You say all crusades were huge blood sheads and dont talk about the only one that whas successfull without it. (Sixth Crusade by Fridrich II.)

[@tiggergolah]

On this one point, I'm afraid I must disagree with you. My reading of the Crusades is much different than yours. While civilian casualties are always regrettable, they are sometimes unavoidable. I think the Crusades, at least in their original intent, if not their execution, were overall a just war against Muslim agression.

[@rudynathan8852]

That my friend is called propaganda

[@khorps4756]

+Snaggle Toothed hey I noticed one part of his comment saying "I think the Crusades, at least in their original intent" do you think that might be something you missed? jackass

[@mrforveralone]

If so they should have happened a couple of hundred years earlier then.

[@AdobadoFantastico]

Sure, but how much does original intent matter over a 400 year timeline? The first one, I'd say that's reasonably valid. But ultimately the various leaders began to see Byzantine land as just another region to carve up for their own purposes. If 80% of it had an intent that shifted from the original, do you still characterize it by the opening chapter? The Crusades did a lot to pick apart the Eastern Roman Empire. Not just by Muslims. They had just recovered the territory previously invaded by the Bulgars and Slavs(First Bulgarian Empire) shortly before the first Crusade. The Second Bulgarian Empire was able to form largely because of the continued hammering that Byzantium was receiving on all sides. They even offered support to Barbarossa for his Crusade because it seemed he was on the brink of declaring his own war on Byzantium. No one was truly interested in helping. For any military leader, it was mainly a premise by which to put their armies there and see what they could grab. The Eastern Empire was raped. Doesn't matter if it started off with hugs, kisses, and consent. The whips came out and no one took no for an answer. Execution is what matters. We are judged by our actions, not our words. You can see a person's true bias when they begin to insist on judging by words over actions.

[@eurosensazion]

Al I know is what a waste for Europe to lose Constantinople. It is on European land mostly and the West sacking it is so dumb and then avoid helping take it back for fear of the Ottomans reaching Western Europe. Greeks tried in their modern revolution alone. Churchill tried in WW1 and failed but again Germany also helped fund the Turks. What a waste. It is a city of magnificence more important than the Vatican itself and even Paris. And now the Turks have it. Disgraceful.

[@ianalexander6977]

Just a point on your pronunciation of Outremer. It's not out-reemer as you say but OO-tre-MARE.

[@RyanReevesM]

But if I didn't occasionally mispronounce things what would people do? :)

[@DarrenLaShelle]

The end was a tortured explanation to rid Christian guilt or something. Very strange and out of context. Better when you just stick to the historical record as best we know it to date, the rest of the two lectures was very good.

[@RyanReevesM]

Not so much guilt. More of an appeal to deal with the historical data. These events get used so very often today but often out of context from their origins. Others tend to shrug them off as nothing important. History does have bearings in modern conversations when it's used in either of these ways.

[@cgm778]

18:00 The pope wasn't blameless. Assigning blame in this case is easy. He didn't do it because he was Christian, they didn't do it because they were Muslim, he did it and they did it because they were humans. Religious doctrine is a good excuse but it's not the reason. We're still human, could happen again, all we really need is a good excuse.

[@MrKoalaburger]

Can the Alt-Right just leave the comments. Some of us are here to learn from a scholar, not spaz out and start crusade LARPing.

[@theodorearaujo971]

You make the statement at 21:50 that the lands subject to the Crusades had not been controlled by the West "before". I believe this is mistaken. Prior to and long after the establishment of Constantinople the Romans controlled Palestine, Egypt, etc. Prior in fact the the creation of the Muslim religion-Islam (580-620?) all of those lands were controlled by the West if you ant to concede that Rome represented middle ages "West". The Eastern Empire of the Roman state was surprised by the Islamic forces that started to dislodge Rome and their Barbarian Allies as early as 630. Byzantium was not rally created until after the split between the Patriarchs (1052?) and even after that the Roman Eastern Empire (part of the west culturally) controlled the territories the Muslim's now claim were always under their control. The Arabs only started to control these territories after 1100 when the fourth crusade collapsed. The West controlled these lands from 200BC until 1100 AD.

[@RyanReevesM]

Yes good comment to let me clarify. At this point the students in the course would have heard all this about ancient culture and church control of these lands. I should have said 'since the 8th century they had not controlled these lands' to be more clear. :)

[@AdobadoFantastico]

I disagree. You say the Eastern Empire was part of the west culturally. But I'd argue it was the West which was part of the Eastern Empire, culturally. Eastern Empire was the main seat of power and culture(not Rome or any Western power). It was they who controlled these lands for most of that time, but the Western powers, by using the kind of associative logic you did, saw fit to take control "on behalf of" the Eastern Empire. But that was simply a contrivance, as they had little interest in the health of the Eastern Roman Empire(or they would have stopped the Bulgars). Really, it went through three periods. One where the Eastern Roman Empire had control, then Western powers' back and forth struggle for control of the region(with the Muslims, Byzantines, and sometimes each other), followed by the Muslim powers eventually assuming authority. Byzantium only wanted the western powers there the first time, beyond that they were unwelcome interlopers *at best*.

[@theodorearaujo971]

Northern Africa, Palestine, Egypt were controlled by the Roman forces prior to the creation of the Eastern Empire in Constantinople...well before the creation of Islam. After the Western Empire started to disintegrate (475?) the Eastern Empire still had control of the areas cited above. Only after Islam came on the scene (620) were there successive revolts. It was the split in Islam that led to the attempt and successful migration to Southern Spain, whose expansion would lead to the first decisive battle between Muslim and Christian forces at Tours. The Crusades followed, wit the 4th being an attack on "heretical" Byzantium, opening the door for the Turks. The Khan decimated Baghdad in 800+/- thereby ending the Roman control of certain lands, but the Byzantium Christians would not fall until 1500 (+/-). There was no power in the East other than Persians who could contend with the West and certainly no body politic that could dislodge them.

[@KTChamberlain]

I regard the Crusades in just one sentence: Both sides committed heinous atrocities--neither sides were saints. And I just leave it at that.

[@rohadtanyad8908]

what you are talking about with modern military is lgat, large group awareness training. it is not discipline, it is a psychological manipulation tool to create basically robots that kill. this is a very modern idea.

[@lokighost2075]

Why should europeans regret Our history? No thank you, i am proud of european history. Including the crusades

[@thomasalvarez6456]

Good video but a bit unfair.

[@cryptotouch]

The Albigensian were Cathares (the pure ones) from the city of Albi in the Languedoc southern France not near Switzerland. Their spirituality was a way of life true to the pure teachings of Jesus. The Catholic Church was seeking temporal power through spiritual dominance, the Cathares were pure and peaceful spiritualists who shunned the indulgence in the richness of this world. This crusade was the only one in European territory and can be explained in no other way than the king of France wanted to have dominance in the region and the Church to "kill them all! God will recognize his own". Is Mr Reeves biased or ignorant on the subject? My trust in the validity of his facts has been truly tested.

[@daveseagram6954]

if only Muslims believed in repentance

[@daveseagram6954]

Ibn Muhammad that's a lie, their is no peace with Muslims

[@eliyahu899]

You have a lot of repenting to do !!!

[@dannyburch2122]

Religon Ruins Everything.

[@NeilCrouse99]

21:00,... What exactly are you trying to say when you infer that because there are issues for societies that are not religious, this proves that we shouldn't blame religion for wars. Sorry, but you damn well know that it is theology that causes that VAST amount of strife in the world, AND ALWAYS HAS AND WILL. It's FAR past time to stop believing in fairy tails. Religion is so obviously man made. and it is slowly but surely being recognized as such. I have a question as well,... *"Why is it that those who are religious feel that they have a stranglehold on morals"?* I argue that EVOLUTION itself, can very much explain morals. First of all, humans gave morals to religion, not the other way around. We simply could not have made it this far in our development as a species if this were not so. When we think of things that are, "Moral", it is ALWAYS, with no exceptions ever, concerned with the health, welfare and survival of "Community". Whatever that “Community” may be. (eg. Country you live in, town you live in, family you were born into, pets you have, friends you have, groups you belong to, etc.....) If any individual does something to harm those bonds, (of Community), whether physically or emotionally, whether it be to themselves, their pets, or those who they are companions with, THAT is what is considered to be “IMMORAL”. Anything which is damaging to the healthy continuation, betterment or advancement of community, is what we, as human beings, determine as Immoral. You can call the desire that guides that purpose whatever makes you happy, whether it be God, Allah, Zeus, etc,.. The point being that the anti-theistic have inarguably demonstrated that people indeed can live "Moral" lives,.. for no other reason than this behavior is the evolutionary benefit that advances our species.