Why the Crusades Were Worse Than You Thought, Debunking Pax Tube's Crusader Ideology

[@ABOLISH_NASA]

What are your thoughts on flat earth? Probably not very high, you sound like someone who readily believes the mainstream view of things...

[@anon-san3975]

NO FUCKING WAY IS THIS GUY FOR REAL?

[@eyraaaaaa]

genius

[@TheModdedwarfare3]

What are your thoughts on flat earthers being completely unable to have a single model that shows, time of day, seasons, planets paths, and geography at the same time?

[@undrscrH]

no he's a turtle earth enjoyer

[@matheusfroehlich5727]

pin of shame

[@kmmmsyr9883]

Crusades are totally one of the events of history. My favourite one is the time Venetians said "it's crusadin time" and crusaded all over the city of Constantinople.

[@sonofspardauser]

Another event that is totally one of the big events in history is when Genghis Khan said "it's mongol empirin' time" and invaded all over central asia.

[@veg411]

Good god this joke was never funny. Stop spreading your cancer everywhere.

[@myamdane6895]

Funniest leftist

[@noone-os5pj]

@myamdane6895 My favourite part was when a conservatard tried to make fun of ''leftist'' comedy and then didn't say anything funny instead

[@jeffersonclippership2588]

My favorite part is how Muslims conquered Jerusalem in the mid-8th century and western Christendom only did something about it 400 years later but people still say the Crusades were in self-defense

[@thedemonhater7748]

My favorite moment in crusade history was when Baldwin IV told Saladin that his army of betas couldn’t possibly mog him and his sigmas, and Saladin promised not to face him “on skibidi”

[@G1hadi]

what the Sigma are you talking about Saladin is the ultimate Alpha rizzler he is the goat

[@petergidai4740]

underrated comment

[@theodiscusgaming3909]

this is the best comment on this video

[@supersonicfan3522]

Fr I remember that

[@D4rkmatter]

Top comment

[@SamwiseOutdoors]

The "Fuck It, Let's Just Sack Constantinople" Crusade is my favorite.

[@DANtheMANofSIPA]

The West had never been the same 😔

[@thenamesianna]

Venice be like: Hello, I like money

[@wilcowen]

The byzantine empire just had the worst luck how it survived for so long is beyond me

[@wilcowen]

​@@thenamesianna pretty much the history of Venice and genoa

[@SamwiseOutdoors]

@@wilcowen Somewhere between failing upwards and bumbling into a happenstance survival.

[@Varan12341]

Turns out when you trust historians over online grifters, your views of the past become much more complex and nuanced and history doesn't just fit into a "us vs. them" mentality.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

People gonna people, wherever and whenever they are

[@posthawk1393]

@@williamchamberlain2263 Yeah, like the people who think the Crusades weren't justified after 450 years of Muslim conquest and rape of Christian lands. The Crusades were the most justified war of all time.

[@meilinchan7314]

It's not a view that makes people happen, that's why people mostly prefer the grifters.

[@posthawk1393]

@@Varan12341 It’s actually pretty simple: Muslims were trying to wipe out Christianity, and they were about 75% of the way there at the time of the first crusade. Also this idea that every historian agrees that the crusades weren’t justified is just ridiculous. It’s a blatant lie.

[@posthawk1393]

@@meilinchan7314 I'm not saying the guy who made this video is a grifter, but he's either a liar, or completely ignorant or biased. He literally summed up 450 years of Muslim savagery against Christians as "mutually beneficial for both sides."

[@marshallsilverstar9636]

The one actually defending was the eastern roman empire and they were the ones suffering the most at the end

[@FreddaYT]

Literally, well also the Armenians but they were also getting tag-teamed by the Seljuks and the Byzantines.

[@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporation]

Byzantine bois just can't catch a break ☹️

[@davidwright6591]

Not just the Byzantines, even within the Crusader States all Christians who weren't Frankish Catholics were treated as second class citizens. Oh, and also the Crusaders (with the help of the Catholic Church) installed their own Latin patriarchs of antioch and Jerusalem (posts that existed in literally all of the Eastern Churches for centuries beforehand). So much for defending their brothers in the east

[@hedgehog3180]

Listening to the History of Byzantium Podcast you really get a feel for how endlessly frustrating the bullshit of the Crusaders were. I mean one of the leading Crusaders, Bohemond had literally invaded the empire about 20 years ago with Papal blessing. Frankly a large part of why the First Crusade succeeded was that the Romans weren't yet completely disillusioned with Westerners and actually helped them out and guided them through Anatolia (though they didn't listen). By the time of the Second Crusade it's very obvious that the Romans have given up and the Crusaders just keep getting themselves killed in the most stupid ways because they refuse to listen to those who actually live there.

[@ЛехАскольдич]

​@@hedgehog3180Are we talking about the vert Byzantium that thrisely waged wars against Antioch, weakening possibly the greatest asset that the empire could use in the east? I'm not even talking about Cilician Armenia. The very Byzantium that devastated Armenia in constant wars and made it easy target for Seljuks? The guys who were so stubborn and rigid in their religion that oriental Christians literally believed that Muslims are better than Greeks in terms of tolerance? The wisest Byzantine emperor of a time, Manuel Komnenos forged an amazing alliance with crusaders and he didn't even use the crude force, through diplomatic means he managed to win allegiances of both Jerusalem and Antioch. And then, the fuck-up he was, Andronikos Komnenos viciously slaughtered all the Franks in Constantinople including the late basileus' wife and his son. Stubborness and hubris of Byzantine greeks are the main reasons why their empire fell in the first place.

[@ogedits123]

Actually the crusades were awesome and everyone respawned and there was a giant speaker playing sigma edit music

[@kellarmoore9983]

can confirm it was based

[@branomusuka9683]

Bro don't trust this guy, he takes information from random people that aren't even labeled as true

[@MartNM]

​@branomusuka9683 nah it really happened It was revealed to me in a dream

[@keck4022]

@@branomusuka9683it actually happened tho, I was the speaker

[@ediodimacaroni]

​@@branomusuka9683No it's real, I was there personally

[@omarmatouq3855]

I love the huge difference in the newest and top comments.

[@VolkTikhon]

Thank you

[@goyonman9655]

Yup

[@newend2116]

Always the fun part of the comment section for polemic videos :3

[@qymaen-jai-sheelal]

Jeez!

[@IvanHavid]

​@@VolkTikhonew, a synthetic man subscriber 🤢

[@elontusk9167]

>"The crusades were good, actually." >watches video >it's the reconquista and the spanish taking back the iberian peninsula and has absolutely nothing to do with the jerusalem front

[@REAPERthePRUSKIE]

The irony is that the Reconquista wasn't a crusade called by the pope It was started by the Spanish and Portuguese and Franks

[@prominentmagpie7153]

what is the difference? jerusalem was christian before muslims forced converted everyone to their p3dophilic religion

[@jamestargin2957]

He talks about the Eastern front plenty. He explains that, while the eastern front was not as successful as the Western front, it managed to push back the Islamic invasions and protect Christians for a while.

[@TAP7a]

where prussia

[@thomasjones3206]

Did he even say the reconquesta was a crusade?

[@Agora13]

Adult Eren Yeager avatars are always a red flag.

[@micromints1735]

It’s the equivalent of Joker pfps for anime

[@NeostormXLMAX]

But eren turned out to be an incel cuck in the end

[@Thatdoginme_m3]

It's wild how many of them completely missed the point of his character

[@enotsnavdier6867]

​@@Thatdoginme_m3They don't really understand that he was the bad guy in the end and that his "solution" didn't end up working.

[@potatortheomnipotentspud]

The Titans kill because they have to eat. What's the Scout Corps' excuse?

[@mihailosaranovic5444]

I find the slave argument funny, as a Slav, considering that in the 10th century the Frankish Empire, Moravia and Venice were notorious for raiding non-Christian Slavic lands and selling them in Spain, Prague, Verdun and Venice, to Muslims, among other buyers. And as it turns out, the Christian slave merchants didn't mind selling Christian slaves to Muslims too, which can be seen by several papal bans on selling Christian slaves to Muslims that were passed across the centuries.

[@enotsnavdier6867]

Doesn't the word "Slave" come from Slav because they were so commonly enslaved? I could be wrong about that tho

[@Apogee012]

yes@@enotsnavdier6867

[@Apogee012]

those same slav slaves became muslim nobles and janissieries with power of dethroning the kings in the ottoman empire

[@Rifqiethehero]

​​@@Apogee012those janissaries are too op that Mahmud II had to nerf them

[@Bigfatfrog83]

@@enotsnavdier6867yes but because they were enslaved by Turks

[@Sosarchives]

Didn’t the crusaders kill a bunch of Orthodox Christians as well?

[@something1600]

Yes.

[@tricksnotreats7277]

Shhhh we’ll just ignore that part because it doesn’t support my narrative

[@hedgehog3180]

Oh in the thousands.

[@ЛехАскольдич]

They did, and this is what they actually lamented, and those who did it after the time of First Crusade were universally condemned for it (Renaud de Châtillon's raid of Cyprus is the prime example of it). Medieval times, eh.

[@johndorilag4129]

Latin Christians, mostly merchants, visitors, immigrants, etc., were massacred in Constantinople and surrounding areas in the 1180's out of jealousy, malice, and spite.

[@geovane19]

not even 2 minutes in and your argument is calling him a incel lmao

[@Chris-pg7qg]

LOL

[@rorgorr2339]

For some reason leftists in general like to call everyone they dont agree with a "virgin" or "incel"

[@alexanderthesortof9550]

If you start reading, or watching something with the intent of finding an excuse to disregard it completely, you will find it

[@sharkape]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck

[@Western-Supremacist]

I agree, propagandistic nonsense from start to finish.

[@denniszaychik8625]

There were even some weird ideological moments in terms of national identity in European Christian countries as well. For instance the leaders of the Scandinavian countries literally had speeches with claims such as these " We the children of Odin and Thor in the name of Jesus Christ will free the Holy Land."

[@levongevorgyan6789]

The Eddas show there was a conflation of the god Baldur and Jesus, so this isn't so weird. Pagan religions adopting the gods of other cultures happened all the times. The Romans liked Mithra and Isis, the Greeks liked the Phoenician Ishtar, the Chinese adopted Buddha, my own Armenian ancestors mixed our indigenous gods like Astghik and Tsovinar with Persian deities like Ahura Mazda

[@ottersirotten4290]

based

[@denniszaychik8625]

@@levongevorgyan6789 The thing with Baldur wasn't really weird for if we are talking from a propagandistic/ideological perspective it is all completely logical. (During that particular time period of course) However proclamations that we the children of Pagan gods are going to fight in the name of the Lord despite being descendants of other gods which according to Bible scholars of the time either don't exist at all or are demonic spirits is indeed weird.

[@levongevorgyan6789]

@@denniszaychik8625 I meant it wasn't weird for the Norse, who were trying to fit their old religion with their new.

[@denniszaychik8625]

@@levongevorgyan6789Well from that perspective yeah I guess. Still sounds pretty weird, especially with some other historical context elements of the time. Guess just shows that Medieval ages were a bit more complicated than what we think of them today.

[@dr0g_Oakblood]

Now I know this is a minor quibble, but the map of the 1054 Schism that this guy uses for some reason just ignores Santiago, despite its rather central importance as a Catholic pilgrimage site, which is weird considering how thorough the rest of the map is and even includes stuff like Cordoba and even typically underappreciated sites like Armagh and Iona, it's probably not intentional by the mapmakers but it is rather sloppy all things considered, for someone who considers themselves a TradCath he seems to use questionable Catholic sources, but I suppose that is a running theme here.

[@TheoEvian]

> Call yourself a tradcath > Don't even read Origen > Are you even trying? :D

[@jmgonzales7701]

what are trad caths?

[@_extrathicc]

​@@jmgonzales7701Fascists larping as catholics

[@renlevy411]

​@@jmgonzales7701People that reject 2nd Vatican Council. Rejecting an ecumenical council is very heretical under Catholicism.

[@voxpopuli8132]

This guy immediately begins with a HUGE strawman by stating that he (PaxTube) "discovered... that we have all been lied to, every historian was wrong" There are dozens upon dozens of books by recent Historians, who defend the crusades. Just to name a few: Thomas F Madden's books on the crusades, for example: The New Concise History of the Crusades (Critical Issues in World and International History) Rodney Stark (

[@waltercommunitycollege1615]

The crusades were not as important as the average internet user treats them as.

[@FreddaYT]

Well, I do think the general insanity of them and the thousands dead warrants some historical importance. They saw the fabrication of early Islamophobic myths and racial concepts, as well as some proto-colonial tendencies.

[@moonshinei]

No, I’d say they were pretty important because they were the first mass exposition of the colonialist tendencies of Europeans

[@alexanderzippel8809]

@@FreddaYTyeah. One could argue that they had a heavy influence on the Reconquista in Iberia which had a very heavy influence on how the Spanish conducted their colonialism

[@norikofu509]

@@moonshinei Every group of people has tendencies to colonialism, look at Africa Pre-europe

[@moonshinei]

@@norikofu509 it’s a bit different with Abrahamic Crusades. it was a tendency not only to colonize for the sake of expansion, but to “civilize” and “Christianize” the “other”. It was the first time this became the norm, and would come to characterize many colonialist tendencies of the future

[@jonnialavuo]

both sides did wrong, muslims weren't saints but neither were christians

[@christopher9727]

Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Romans 6.23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus

[@KamsiyonnaEzepue]

Thats how I view the Cetusades. No war has a 100 percent good or 100 percent bad side. The onlly good thing I can give credit to the Crusades for is uniting a very divided medival Christiandom for once

[@no-lifenoah7861]

@@KamsiyonnaEzepue i mean the sacking of Constantinople is much much harder to defend morally.

[@KamsiyonnaEzepue]

@@no-lifenoah7861 From a comment I read on Pax Tubes channel ( I'll research it today) Constantinople was sacked because during the Crusades they had some sort of alliance or deal with the Muslim kingdoms, which made the Crusaders angry.

[@senlim8461]

@@KamsiyonnaEzepueno this isn’t true at all, Constantinople owed Venice money and wouldn’t pay them back so Venice convinced its crusaders that the Greeks were enemies of Christ who needed their city sacked (and the money given to Venice)

[@LeandroCapstick]

Sorry to nitpick, but Saint Augustine was born way after 325. He was born in 354, and only converted to Christianity around 386 (according to Peter Brown). Perhaps you meant 425?

[@i____amakiwi]

Glorification of brutal events is the natural consequence of being an Eren fan

[@fullmetaltheorist]

Mfs think they're Eren but they're Floch.

[@hue-wp6ip]

AoT is a different story, he had no other choice (I haven't read manga btw)

[@fullmetaltheorist]

@@hue-wp6ip I kinda don't like that. I probably should make a video about it if I have the energy. But the way AOT frames Eren’s actins like he had no choice is not very good. "Our enemies won't rest until they destroy us so we have to destroy them first." Is not accurate to real life. The show seems to assume that people can't live in peace or just exist without conflict u less they have a common enemy but if you just go outside and look at the world you'll see that people overall prefer peace over war.

[@hue-wp6ip]

@@fullmetaltheorist Whether its accurate to real life or not is a different story (and something that I don't necessarily have a side on) but Paradis already tried diplomacy for 4 years straight and it got nowhere, and the world was assembling an alliance to destroy the island. Hange and Armin had no plans other than words and hugs so Eren was left to wipe out the world to ensure they dont do it again

[@kovacsnovak6745]

​@@fullmetaltheoristdeterrence, besides the wall titans, ensures those words are backed up but unfortunately they didn't have it. Unless you count the fanfic, "freedom's ring" where America comes into the picture of AOT to back Paradis

[@АдамДзоблаев]

In my opinion, the 4th crusade was the most cringe. But we have Crusader Kings for memes now.

[@FreddaYT]

I think they're all pretty cringe, but the First Crusade has plenty of cringe moments as well

[@emperoremperor1486]

@@FreddaYT I think the VI ones was the least cringe just because there was an adult in the room(Frederick II).

[@Mag_ladroth]

@@FreddaYT What about the Children's Crusade

[@SulistaComunista]

Dude, here in Brazil we have an ancap (or whatever you call anarcho-capitalists) that dresses like a crusader, he ran for federal deputy (or for state deputy, I don't remember exactly) and when a guy shouted something he didn't like he ran to the police to ask to arrest this guy. He is hilarious, he already said that The Last of Us should not be watched by children because "it is against moral values" because of the lesbian sex scenes, BUT THE SERIES IS CLASSIFIED FOR OVER 18 YEARS OLD, he also denied covid (but that's not surprising here, our former president also denied seriousness saying that "it's just a little flu") and asked for a coup after our elections. Definitely hilarious and painful to watch his videos.

[@enossoares6907]

@@SulistaComunista pera eu vivo debaixo de uma rocha quem diabos é esse cara?

[@skyeplus]

"Who unlike their heroes didn't choose their celibacy"

[@jeremybeau8334]

???

[@skyeplus]

@jeremybeau8334 Incels

[@jeremybeau8334]

@@skyeplus How can you tell they are INCELS? simple curiosity...

[@skyeplus]

@@jeremybeau8334 Elementary, Watson. The explicitly refers to non-voluntary celibacy, and it's a snide towards a group of people. So, incels.

[@troopersteve2992]

A fun fact on the origin of the term dark ages, the term was invented by Francesco Petrarch to refer to the late latin era as a "Dark Age" for the latin world in comparison for the old Roman golden age and culture that was being rediscovered at the time and seen as superior. People have tried to bend or misunderstood the meaning of the term "Dark Ages" which leads to the misconception.

[@bojangles2492]

From a modern perspective the 'dark ages' turned out to be not so devoid of literature and art.

[@greatbriton8425]

The term was re-used many hundreds of years later to apply to the pre-printing press world of uneducated superstition and feudal abuses.

[@bas-tn3um]

almost like it was referencing the fall of the pax romana or something. not an age of darkness ignorance and inability to make art. more like a lack of political and societal stability. @@bojangles2492

[@viljaminieminen6925]

My understanding is that Dark age refers to time after Western Roman Empire. Because we really dont have a lot of information about that time.

[@bas-tn3um]

their were two dark ages the bronze age collapse which cause the greek dark age and medieval dark age which as you stated was the chaos after the fall of western rome.@@viljaminieminen6925

[@brix7738]

"this is a deeply unserious individual" gonna use this one

[@austinlaplante4203]

If you look at some of his other videos you'll find one where he says that Germany, Italy, and Japan are not real democracise. During such video he complains that Italy and Germany arent real democracies because they both banned their fascists parties. This guy also heavily implies that he doesnt belive in democracy and if not a outright Fascists he is certainly sympathetic to it.

[@kitcloudkicker14]

That weirdo Pax Tube literally defends the inquisition and says that the french revolution was bad because the revolutionaries murdered the king and many rich nobles. So, his ideal society is definitely some sort of absolutist theocracy, the funniest thing with this kind of freaks is that they always envision themselves as said kings or nobles reading and writting in palaces or castles in a comfey chair, when in fact, they would have been peasants working 24/7 in farmlands with miserable conditions and paying abusive taxes to the nobles.

[@based_kaiser9015]

@@kitcloudkicker14 Being a medieval peasant is better than the soulless bugman life of modernity

[@kitcloudkicker14]

@@based_kaiser9015 Lead with the example and delete your social media accounts, no more memes, no more videogames, no more "trad-chad" videos here, cuz medieval peasants didn't have all that stuff. You won't endure one weekend by just staring the walls PD: I don't know why you are defending a catholic reactionary like Pax Tube while having a Kaiser pfp, when the german emperors were protestant and the country as a whole was the first to ever defy the catholic church thanks to Martin Luther. For him you are also part of the "liberal degeneracy" since he believes only catholicism is the true faith.

[@goyonman9655]

If you ban political parties. You're not a real democracy

[@dopaminedreams1122]

sounds fair to me, "fascist" is a term with zero meaning after all you guys used it to refer to anyone to the right of Stalin. Cry more

[@darkunor6687]

Gotta love certain people that stops watching the video the moment the author calls the incel nature of the other side, and doesn't listen to the rest, because their own personal bias gets in the way, THEN, call out the video for being "too biased" when the author is open about it, sometimes the hypocrisy is so blatantly open its comical.

[@commissarkordoshky219]

What about those who hear the incel claim and stop, saying; "I have seen enough, I am satisfied"?

[@sirellyn]

When you engage in name calling and ad-hominem, you cease to become a worthwhile person to listen to. Clean up your argument (if you actually have one) and learn some decorum. There's thousands of people daily who can speak better that time is better spent listening to. If you have truth speak it, not vitriol.

[@enriqueperezarce5485]

If your gonna do a actual argument on why their wrong, name calling is the worst thing you can do within a argument. It shows you aren’t worthwhile to listen to even IF you may be in the right of the argument. You lose all integrity.

[@RandomThing-dg4ph]

@@sirellyn I’m sorry, but him using an ad-hominem doesn’t change the fact that he debunked Pax Tube. He proved that Pax Tube was wrong, this is true regardless of if you want to watch the video or not. To claim that the conclusion is wrong simply because he used a fallacy, is a fallacy in itself (the fallacy fallacy)

[@RandomThing-dg4ph]

@@enriqueperezarce5485 “You aren’t worthwhile to listen to” the video is still true regardless of if you watch it or not. He used evidence to back up his claims and sources to back up his evidence. It’s a sound argument. You can’t think that the conclusion is false just because he used a fallacy, because that in itself is a fallacy (the fallacy fallacy)

[@sully1492]

I find it weird that KZbin channel literally means “PeaceTube” which contradicts his channel’s justification of violence.

[@neoqwerty]

I mean you expect someone like that to know languages? Pretty sure they're named that just because of one of the Roman Empire books (Pax Romana, probably) that ilk likes to talk about when they're appropriating ancient history.

[@sully1492]

@neoqwerty I agree, he probably heard Pax Romana and found it cool and copied and used it to make him look educated even though it didn’t have a clue what it meant or the context of that term

[@goyonman9655]

​@@sully1492 He obviously knows the meaning of pax As he knows swords are necessary for peace. Especially against heathens

[@sully1492]

@@goyonman9655 really putting too much faith in a guy knowing some basic Latin. Also dude, don’t go on about heathens man.

[@goyonman9655]

@@sully1492 Every one with a any familiarity with the english language ( not latin). Knows pax means peace. IT'S AN ENGLISH WORD In Latin it means peace In English it means peace in a specific sense: the peace that comes with being under the same dominion. Maybe for you this is profound. But it's pretty common knowledge for most people. Pax tube obviously knows this

[@Yell0wCheese]

yes fredda i understand you like disco elysium but there exists other music tracks than whirling in rags

[@FreddaYT]

I'VE BEEN LOOKING BUT IT HAS TO BE ROYALTY FREE IT'S NOT EASY

[@جعفرمعفر-ط3ج]

@@FreddaYT lol

[@psolo3]

I know I'm late, and I respect your opinion and the research that went into it, but I completely disagree with your thesis. It seems as if you're judging the means without analyzing the ends. Christian Europe had a choice: let the Islamic Empire continue their expansion, or retaliate. Why throughout all of history is it okay to retaliate against a rival power expanding into your empire except in the case of the crusades? Do you really think they were going to stop in Spain? No. History isn't all sunshine and rainbows. There were barbaric individuals on both sides. Don't start looking in to what the Romans did when they were Pagan. And the tie back to modern lunatics is extremely dishonest. Horribly unethical for you to pull a lone wolf from 1000 years later to talk about how something was bad. Alexander must also have been bad, as Hitler and Mussolini aligned themselves with him.

[@sven1966]

This guy chats rubbish if he cherrypicks someone from Pax’s ideology we could also grab one from his.

[@psolo3]

@@sven1966 I watched the Pax video too and disagreed with his opinions on almost all of the evidence he cited, but at the very least I agreed with his thesis that the crusades were necessary. There's very little in this video, on the other hand, that I agree with

[@forsubingsteam1565]

Except there is no "Christian Europe". The "Christian Europe" was not a unified and coherent whole, the "Catholic Europe", you could make a weak argument for, but Christian Europe? No. And in addition to that, "Catholic Europe" did not have a choice. The Pope had a choice between doing nothing or turning Catholicism into a increasingly militant sect which would later display it's colors in extreme brutality of increasingly local crusades, which is something one should feel concerned with, especially adherents of said religion. And this was expressed in a series of localized anti heretic crusades against Christians in your Christian Europe.

[@redbird3697]

There is no such thing as "The Islamic Empire" various Caliphates emerged and often fought against each other, it was the Seljuk Turks who were at war with the Byzantine Empire while the Umayyad Caliphate had conquered Spain. And the Crusades were not a war of retaliation regardless of how they saw it. Jerusalem had been controlled by various Muslim Caliphates since the 7th century, almost 400 years before Pope Urban II's speech calling for a crusade. This would be like saying Mexico would be justified in retaliating against the U.S by taking Nevada, New Mexico and California. And before the various Caliphates, Jerusalem was part of the Byzantine Empire, despite this the "reclaimed" territory was not returned to the Byzantines and was instead ruled by Frankish and Norman nobles who's ancestors had never set foot in the Holy Land. If the goal of the Crusades was to stop the Seljuk Turks from taking more of Byzantium and the Umayyads from taking more of Europe then they would be justified, but that's not what the First Crusade accomplished.

[@dopaminedreams1122]

@@redbird3697 you know what he means, jesus if your only argument is "actually it wasn't ONE evil empire but a few" you know your LOST. Stop trying to attack Christians for fighting back jsut because leftists have some insane need to side with the brown people NO matter what. Your probabaly some self hating anglo american

[@tora0neko]

these people are so weird as someone who grew up catholic. They just want warhammer 40k to be real

[@charlieturk2146]

have you heard of trench crusade? someone literally made ww1 wh40k with the catholic church

[@tora0neko]

@charlieturk2146 I've kinda heard of it but not in depth. It gave big krieger vibes from the little that I saw

[@charlieturk2146]

@@tora0neko think more repentia and that's trench crusade

[@eges72]

Thank you for speaking out, as a muslim my closest non muslim friends always end up being catholic for a reason. very hospitable people

[@tora0neko]

@@eges72 things really chilled out after Vatican 2

[@geoffroydegodefroy2374]

If anyone is interested in an actual PhD in Medieval warfare talking about the Crusades ideology, they should be watching Schwerpunkt

[@Pompeius_Strabo]

Any chance you could comment on the quality of his work, I know he’s accredited but seeing so many videos produced so rapidly makes me worry about the quality of his work. I also can’t seem to find where he cites his sources, seems like there sources for his images but not any academic sources

[@geoffroydegodefroy2374]

@@Pompeius_Strabo Schwerpunkt is beyond political chit chat, he just teaches you history topics as if he were making a 2h lessons at university which he's evidently habituated to from years. I've never seen on KZbin a person making a video every day either but from his historical regions series to the one on Medieval warfare, etc., he talks way much in unusual depth for the average historical KZbin channel. Honestly I don't know how he does it but the content speaks for itself

[@charlesk22]

​@@geoffroydegodefroy2374thanks for the recommendation.

[@LuzMaLopez-uq6xl]

Exactly, Schwerpunkt, Historiansplaining or Rediscovery Channel or basically any videos of lectures in academic institutes or downright universities. This video responses are more often than not just internet drama and political chitchat where people isnt really interested in learning a profound understanding of a subject, but just to impose their ideas that are quite clearly politically driven, thats why i don't trust any of these youtubers (except for the ones listed above) specially if they are blatant leftists like this guy Fredda or intellectually deshonest like that guy Pax Tube

[@LuzMaLopez-uq6xl]

Btw, "crusades" are not an ideology pal, remember, ideologies didnt existed until the French Revolution

[@ClubOneUwU]

What language is the map shown at 18:18 written in? Just curious. Mustameri and Välimeri sound finnish but Buda ja Pest doesn't. Is it estonian?

[@theencoder1575]

Probably Finnish. Budapest was actually 2 cities in the middle ages, each on a diff side of the Danube: Buda and Pest. I googled the finnish word for "and" and it s "ja" so it s probably just "Buda and Pest"

[@lennipulkkinen6446]

Looks like an old finnish map for me

[@kovaketas8271]

yeah it's finnish because estonian would write Mustameri as Must meri and Välimeri would be Vahemeri

[@petitchatontoutmignon8639]

I looked up Mustameri and Välimeri on Wiktionnary and I can confirm it's Finnish :) Here's the Black Sea article in Finnish : fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustameri From there on you can look up all the words on the map and be redirected to their article in Finnish, undeniably confirming the map is Finnish

[@commandercorl1544]

"ja" is actually "and" in finnish, and an incredibly important word of course. evidently budapest used to be two cities that united via the city limits being expanded.

[@hedgehog3180]

5:26 Also that identity did not include all of what we would call Europe today. It mostly included Western and Central Europe. The Romans certainly did not feel apart of it considering they were more often fighting against the Crusaders than alongside them, and Eastern Europe also wasn't really included since it was also more often the target of Crusades than apart of them. 6:08 And it also wasn't true of all Christians that they viewed all Muslims the same way. Namely the Romans were well acquainted with the fragmented post-Caliphate Islamic world. The Roman Empire had operated within this world for centuries by now and had, had close contact with Muslims since the literal birth of Islam so they were pretty familiar with it and the different groups within them. At times they even had Muslim vassals in the form of Antioch and Edessa, and they also often made alliances and signed treaties with Muslim powers. Of course very often Roman sources will display classic Roman arrogance and describe all of these in classical terms, calling all Muslims Persians or all Turks Scythians but they did that with the Latins too. Predictably the European Crusaders who understood none of the complexities of the Eastern Mediterranean often got angry at the Romans for negotiating with Muslim powers because they didn't understand the difference between them. Often the crusaders wouldn't listen to Roman advice or would ignore Turkish targets to instead focus on those in the Levant which held basically no strategic importance to the Romans. The Romans themselves often considered the Europeans a bigger threat and within the Roman aristocracy it's clear that many would have preferred alliances with other Muslim powers against the Turks, who were trying to conquer said powers. We even see examples like the Siege of Nicea where the emperor has to go to great lengths to prevent the crusades from massacring the mostly Roman Christian inhabitants of the city, which is exactly what happened in Jerusalem and Antioch when the Romans weren't there to act as middle men. In general the Eastern Roman Empire pokes a great big hole in most of these narratives about the crusades being a "clash of civilizations" by just not fitting into it even slightly. 7:15 And ironically the actual Roman Empire considered the Arabian Muslims much less barbaric than the European Christians, this is clearly reflected in their sources. While the Arabs are often referred to as Persian, an empire that the Romans always had a begrudging respect for as a fellow empire and treated somewhat as an equal, the Europeans are referred to as Franks or Goths, the tribes that were blamed for the fall of the western half of the Empire. In descriptions of the Crusaders it also seems very clear that the Romans found them uncivilized and uncouth, the sources hold quite a lot of contempt for their lack of manners and the lack of respect and deference they showed towards the emperor. Meanwhile you can't really find the same complaints about Muslims, except Turks but again the Romans knew that they were a recent arrival that most Muslims didn't like either. You even find some Roman sources that praise Bagdhad and concede that it is beautiful though of course second to Constantinople. This doesn't exactly matter but I do just find it funny how he uses these terms that the Romans loved as if the Romans weren't still around at this time and using them. I mean I think Anna Komenene quite literally called the crusaders barbarians. 8:30 Jihad should really be viewed as part of an imperialist ideology that developed within the Caliphate in response to its stunning military successes. It only really starts making it appearance well after the Caliphate has become an empire and there's very little evidence for it within the Quran itself. We have to remember that by the time of the Arab conquest Islam was still a very young religion and in the early stages of its development and we have almost no contemporary Muslim sources from that time period. We have some Christian sources but a lot of them seemed to believe that Muhammad was a jew and that Islam was a sect of Judaism, which is either a mistake because Islam does have a lot in common with Judaism, or a reflection of Islam not having a clear identity yet. The sources start appearing about a century later and they're mostly written by scholars in the now established Caliphate who are trying to push their own ideas and sometimes political connections by claiming to have familial connections to the Prophet. These aspects of imperialist ideology are of course not unique to any empire, the Romans who were right next door had already had their idea of "Just War" for ages propped up by the blatant like that Rome only ever fought defensive wars, and somehow conquered the entire Mediterranean in the process (though at this point their justification was more that they were God's Kingdom on Earth so they had natural dominion over the entire world). Similarly you get later European empires who justify their conquest by claiming that they're spreading civilization or Christianity. Also the stuff about slavery sorta falls flat on it's face when you think about the Roman Empire or the triangle trade. 11:07 That quote is just straight up wrong. While trade in the Eastern Mediterranean was absolutely impacted by the wars between the (IIRC) Abbasid Caliphate and the Roman Empire the fact that the Romans were still taxing merchants in their ports makes it pretty clear that it was still happening. Also the fact that piracy was happening means that there was something to pirate, this is like concluding that there must have been no trade in the Caribbean during the Golden age of Piracy because of all the pirates, like it was the opposite the piracy happened because this was one of the most valuable regions for trade in the entire world. The same could easily be said of the Eastern Mediterranean in this period, it still had some of the richest regions in the world and trade was very valuable. People forget that piracy is often a targeted campaign to take over trade in a region, not an attempt to destroy it. The Vikings had done the same in the North Sea two centuries earlier and the English and Dutch would both use this tactic themselves much later. 11:44 What kinda time frame for the dark ages is this? Everyone considers it to have ended with the Carolingian Renaissance in the 8th and 9th century, about 200 years before he says it ended. At this point basically every chronology would be well into the High Middle Ages. Also usually you'd have it start in the 5th century with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, I don't know what he considers the 200 years between it and the start of his dark ages to have been. 12:17 The best argument against him here is to simply point out that the Islamic Golden Age outlived the Caliphates by about 400 years so clearly it was not based on imperialism. It is usually considered to have ended with the Mongol sack of Bagdhad not the fall of the last Caliphate. 16:02 He also completely misunderstands Turkish tribal politics. These invasions were not centrally planned imperialist expansions but rather individual tribes striking out for themselves in search of loot and pasture lands trying to escape the central power of the Seljuk Sultan. Part of the lead-up to the Battle of Manzikert was actually Sultan Asjan trying to strike a deal with Emperor Diogenes in order to prevent these migrations but it would see the Romans cede a lot of land in Armenia which was unacceptable to them. Also it's a bit disingenuous to call the Turks Muslim at this point, they had converted only two generations prior and their conversion was clearly out of political expediency to gain some manner of legitimacy in the region so they probably weren't very Muslim. And as I've also mentioned before the other Muslims in the region weren't particularly fond of the Turks either and at one point it even seemed like the Romans and the Fatamids were gonna strike an Anti-Turkish alliance. And of course the Romans even had fairly peaceful relations with various Turkish groups at some point and the local population definitely figured out a way to live alongside them. 19:10 Anna probably isn't completely reliable in this aspect. It does seem like Alexios was pleasantly surprised by the Crusade at first and then later came to regret it, mainly because of Antioch. Anna is writing with that hindsight but she also is clearly expressing some of her personal opinion on the Crusaders since most of the Roman elite were quite disgusted by them. She was also writing during the reign of her brother, John, who spent basically his entire life trying to deal with the Crusaders so that probably did a lot to color her views. And she's likely trying to make it seem like her father isn't to blame for this by making him a reluctant participant.

[@jbstarkiller4626]

you're ignorance is showing.

[@potassium3550]

Hold on,jihad is, in fact, a valid part of Islam. It has its rules, legislations, and prohibitions like any other aspect of Islam, so we don't deny it in its reality. As for the idea that the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم was a jew, this is just speculation. His lineage was from Ismail عليه السلام. And the Jews descend from Isaac عليه السلام. Also,for clarification, the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم detailed that there is a particular period in which there would be khulafaa, and that time began with Abu Bakr and ended with Ali رضي الله عنهم. I mention this because there is no belief in Islam that we are divinely appointed to rule if this is what you meant by God's kingdom on earth. Lastly, our religion was completed before the death of the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. There is a verse where Allah mentions that on that day He had completed our religion and bestowed His favor on us. So, Islam was complete and we only followed because we believed he was the last of the messengers, so he was not to die until he conveyed the message. And he was truthful صلى الله عليه وسلم I did not provide many references, but if you have questions I can have them brought forth. Also, I imagine you did not intend bad, but please do not speculate or make assumptions about our beliefs. It can create a wrong understanding in peoples' mind. Otherwise, May Allah guide us.

[@HopeyCraft]

I only really skimmed your comment, so I could be missing something, but in the fourth paragraph you said that Rome justified being God's Kingdom on Earth to conquer the Mediterranean? Wasn't the Roman Empire already almost at its peak territorial expansion by the time Christianity was even legalized? Also I wouldn't say that Rome only fighting defensive wars is a straight up lie, only a "different" interpretation, because your enemies can't conquer you if you do it to them first, right? I don't think it's a good principle, but it would be true.

[@Letitcrustandwipe]

​​​@@potassium3550there's a verse that said in the end (khiamat)all non Muslims will die and go to hell (though this can be applied to all religions who thought of others as inferior)

[@Jhon-ls8ve]

The crusaders massacred a lot of Christians in the holy land

[@WolfensteinHeidenberg]

The issue is that a lot of the people who glorify the crusaders do not understand who went to the crusade in the first place and why Most crusaders were Poor commoners and Slaves from Eastern Europe those people were promised by the crusaders Freeland and freedom in the middle East They didn't go over there because of religion if you told them what is the first chapter in the Bible they wouldn't know some of them of course went because of religion but most of them didn't

[@eges72]

​@@WolfensteinHeidenberg" Most crusaders were Poor commoners and Slaves from Eastern Europe those people were promised by the crusaders Freeland and freedom in the middle East " Kinda reminds me of the Zionism and the State of Israel, promised by the Anglosphere, where the Jews suffering thousands of years of antisemitism, being deported to Palestine for the sake of the Western satisfaction of their own antisemitism. And now they are fleeing because, apparently, stealing someone else's land, ravaging war on your neighbors for the sake of colonization without thinking the consequences of your actions, causes instability and insecurity.

[@gnas1897]

I liked his videos on pornography and hentai, but damn to then see that he (apparently) had a crush on a VTUBER is disappointing and ironic

[@fullmetaltheorist]

He has fallen like the west😢😅

[@kovacsnovak6745]

which one, cause there are lot with different themess to them

[@gnas1897]

@@fullmetaltheorist lmao

[@gnas1897]

@@kovacsnovak6745 I don't remember. Well basically he says that it's bad.

[@norikofu509]

@@fullmetaltheorist Billions must COOM

[@ReboursCVT]

My favourite part of the Crusades is when the Christian kings were fighting amongst each other

[@Mag_ladroth]

My favourite part was when children tried to retake jerusalem

[@andreavoigtlander1087]

@David_Icke-ou5jz Yes.

[@goyonman9655]

Well that was the worst part

[@Aggaleiden070]

It’s always some chronically online American who is cosplaying as a tradcath advocating for the crusades…

[@jurtra9090]

Remember, this is the same guy who thinks that Confederacy are the good guys in the American Civil War

[@davidmason4244]

They are.

[@duruarute5445]

@@davidmason4244 they were slavers?

[@jfournerat1274]

⁠@@davidmason4244really? You do realize that the confederates were adamant racists and pro slavers who thought that it was apparently okay to enslave and brutally mistreat millions of innocent people just because of the color of their skin and not the content of their character. Almost all confederate soldiers even those who did not enslave people were adamant racists and pro slavers who thought that it was okay to enslave millions of innocent people. They were actually the bad guys. Read the biography’s of formerly enslaved people like Frederick Douglass and you will see how horrible slavery was.

[@jfournerat1274]

@@davidmason4244let me give some examples on the confederates altitudes towards slavery and African Americans. One of the main reasons why the confederate states seceded from the Union was out of fear of slavery dying out. Although Abe Lincoln did innitally say that despite opposing slavery he would allow them to keep it he did not want them to expand slavery any further and the Confederates then feared that if they weren’t allowed to expand slavery further then it would eventually become unprofitable and would eventually be forced to die out. Instead of considering the humanity of the millions of innocent people that they enslaved they only cared about remaining wealthy and they had no qualms of enslaving and brutallly mistreating millions of innocent people. When the confederate states seceded from the Union Confederate vice president Alexander H Stephens made a speech which defended slavery and the confederate constitution explicitly legally protected slavery in its territories. In addition most of the 10 confederate generals such as Robert E Lee, and Nathan Bedford Forrest enslaved people themselves or came from families who enslaved people. Sure Robert E Lee did privately recognize slavery as evil but he still tolerated slavery and opposed slavery and was disgusted by it though not out of any concern for African Americans but rather out of concern on its adverse effects on European Americans and defended it against abolitionist demands for the immediate end of slavery. When Robert E Lees father in law George Washington Parke Custis died he wrote in his will that after all of his debts were paid then all of the people that he enslaved would be given their freedom within 5 years. Robert E Lee became the administrator of George’s will but contrary to his father in law’s wishes he tried to keep them enslaved as long as possible. In addition he was directly involved in recapturing African Americans who tried to escape from slavery and he separated many families from each other. Although Robert did eventually give them their freedom five years after George’s death as promised it was not out of kindness or willingness to follow the will as it was in accordance with his father in laws will and he was even pressured by the courts to give them their freedom. In addition his gentleman code of conduct did not apply to African Americans as he did not stop his soldiers from capturing free African Americans and selling them into slavery. In addition he was also a adamant racist as he only supported ending slavery if it was gradual and if they were sent to Liberia despite almost all African Americans at the time having been born and raised in America and after the end of the civil war while he did accept the abolition of slavery he opposed equality for African Americans. Nathan Bedford Forrest was another example of this and he was apparently even worse than Robert as although Robert E Lee enslaved people and had no qualms with mistreating them and also had no qualms with free African Americans being captured and sold into slavery and was a adamant racist he apparently did not go as far as outright killing them. Nathan Bedford Forrest on the other hand did. He was a slave trader meaning that it is likely that he did horrible things such as separating families and was also a enslaver himself. In addition he was a adamant racist with one famous example of his racism being his role in a horrible event in the Civil War known as the fort pillow massacre. In the fort pillow massacre he and his troops had captured African American soldiers who had surrendered and begged for mercy and instead of accepting their surrender and sparing them he allowed his troops to brutally massacre them which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocent people including 2/3rds of the African American soldiers with only 1/3rd of the European American soldiers being killed. This would also make him guilty of war crimes thus making him a war criminal. In addition after the American Civil War he then joined the imfamous racist group known as the Ku Klux Klan and even became its grand Wizard. The klan was notorious for brutally attacking innocent African Americans and those who supported them. Sure Nathan Bedford Forrest did reportedly eventually denounce the klan and left it and in his final years reportedly changed his ways and became a civil rights activist but we don’t know for sure what his motives were for doing so. Sure it is possible that he did geinuinely have a change of heart and became a civil rights activist to try to make amends for his horrible deeds but It is also possible that he only denounced the Klan and became a civil rights activist to look like a good person to make his legacy look better. Even if his change of heart was genuine it still does not change the fact that he was a horrible person in his past though we can still acknowledge that he did reportly see the error of his ways and tried to atone for his horrible past. Most of the confederate generals on the other hand aside from possibly Nathan Bedford Forrest never changed their ways and even those like P T Buregard who came to support voting rights for African Americans only did so out of tactical reasons.

[@davidmason4244]

​@@duruarute5445more than 80% of all whites in the confederacy didnt own slaves, and out of the remaining percent only 0.1% actually had more than 100 slaves. Nobody cared about blacks enough to think of abolition. Not to mention the hundreds of blacks slave owners. Also are we not gonna talk about slave states like Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware which where in the union?

[@Anti-demonXXI]

This "narrative" is as biased as the one it is criticising. Christianity is not worse than Islam, the European Catholic Kingdoms are not worse than the Arab Caliphates and white people are not worse than brown people. The north of Africa, the Mediterranean portion of the Middle East and the plains of Anatolia were christian territories until they were conquered by the muslims. The European Kingdoms were being raided by the muslims, the regions where today are Spain and Portugal were conquered by the muslims and remained under a caliphate's control for centuries, the Arabs coming from Spain didn't conquer France because the French didn't let them, the Christian Byzantine Empire fell to the Otomans and one of the most traditional cities of the Christian civilization is now known as Istanbul. The person who did this video is as fundamentalist as the person who did the other one, fascists of a different kind.

[@BurnBird1]

This is absolutely hilarious.

[@somerandomcanuck9432]

​@@BurnBird1 He is right you know, two sides of the same coin, both oblivious to the other.

[@BurnBird1]

@@somerandomcanuck9432 Sure, the historical consensus is definitely just as reliable as religious crackpots.

[@freddy105]

@@BurnBird1 i think the op of this comment exaggerated but i agree to the notion that islam is just as bad as christianity

[@cesruhf2605]

@@BurnBird1 You racist but the other way around lol

[@Theguy-rk6vc]

Just to add on what you said on interactions between Christians and Muslims in the Mediterranean. Pax Tube's characterization of trade in the Mediterranean is wrong. Pax states that Islamic expansion and pirates effectively killed trade and commerce in the Mediterranean. According to Jonathan Harris's book "Byzantium and the crusades" Harris states that by the 11th century (right before mazikert) The byzantine empire was experiencing an economic trade boom thanks to its core areas and Constantinople's position as a gateway between the east and west. Arabs caliphates traded spices and goods frequently to and from byzantine and markets in the west. Arabs even had a merchant quarter within Constantinople. Also Pax Tube's source (Wikipedia) only mentions the Mediterranean being a no mans land in the 9th century. The 9th century the beginning of the end between total and constant conflicts between byzantine empire and the arab states neighboring it. According to Paul Markham article "The Battle of Manzikert: Military Disaster or Political Failure?" Markham notices that it was during the rein of Michael III during the 9th century which started the reversal of its failures in the east. Michael took advantage of the political turmoil within the abbasid caliphate, and citing Harris again, the Byzantines manage to get concession of recognitions over its dominance in the east. Also the arabs inherited a largly urban and rich east from the Byzantines. They didn't need to raid the west for wealth.

[@phiscz]

minor side note: constantinople was largely tangential to the spice trade to begin with (although this point is more relevant when talking about the misconception that early iberian colonialism was caused by the ottomans 'blocking' the spice trade or whatever). the vast majority of spice, pepper, and other imports from south-east asia were transported to europe through the red sea; most often goods would be shipped through alexandria and then be dispersed throughout mediterranean port cities. for a more concrete example from the years of 1394-1405 venetian merchants imported 1.8 million pounds of spices (pepper, ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg, cloves, etc.) from alexandria, 800,000 pounds from beirut, and only 100,000 pounds from constantinople. (C.H.H Wake, 'The Volume of European Spice Imports at the Beginning and End of the XVth Century')

[@ЛехАскольдич]

And yet there were a bunch of notorious pirate muslim states - most well-known is Berber pirate emirate of Crete, and they indeed more or less paralyzed the trade in Mediterranean, but it was in the Late Antiquity, not during the Crusader Age, when most powerful Muslim sea-empire of a time (Fatimids) were largely in huge decay.

[@Theguy-rk6vc]

@@ЛехАскольдич I'v already accounted for that in my comment. Crete, along with other outpost in the Mediterranean like Rhodes and Sicily were taken back in the 10th century. From Micheal iii to Manzikert was a nonstop push by the Byzantines against the divided Islamic factions. This is very much contrary to the narrative of a united Islamic push against Christendom for centuries which required defensive response. Infact some of the most damaging raiders within the region were Christian. Nearly 10 year after the battle of manzikert the Byzantines were dealt a huge blow by Christian forcers under the Normans. While Manzikert was going on the Normans outsted the Byzantines from italy and raided Greece for plunder. Pax seem to leave this out of your narrative when it was a focal point of byzantine military failures and decline.

[@ЛехАскольдич]

​@@Theguy-rk6vc I'm not saying that Europe stood against some kind of united Islamic front (in fact I don't agree with it either, and I don't agree with Pax too). I also agree that by the time of Crusades the problem more or less exhausted itself, but I think that it is not entirely right to dismiss it anyway.

[@Theguy-rk6vc]

@@ЛехАскольдич I agree. In fact I would even go further and note that Islamic forces were much more incentivized to target and hurt Christians than their own, as you pointed out with Crete. I read that even though Byzantines had nuanced relations with Islamic powers they never had an outright documented alliance with any, and that war of some kind was semi regular, you certainly dont see that to the same extent with Christian powers. As even the venetians, who would become one of Byzantium's greatest rivals, stuck to obligations in their written alliances in 11th century. And I think these two facts certainly says alot about the tensions which underly both societies.

[@cassiecaster989]

As a fellow Norwegian I have to say that this was a very nice video. I particularly liked your exit.

[@alberthernandezgonzalez]

Great video, the Jews and Orthodox Christians also suffered the wrath of crusaders, of course people like Pax thinks it's awesome the Jews were killed and ignores the historical suffering of Orthodox Christians at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.

[@jtt8237]

Yeah it’s crazy. Like the marches through Europe during the 1st Crusade constitute one of the major historical genocides or the Jewish people. Entire communities in Germany and France completely erased from the map

[@alberthernandezgonzalez]

@@jtt8237 Not to mention that the Catholic Church slaughtered Uldrich Zwingli, it's crazy how violent the Catholic Church was historically

[@insertnamehere1258]

Yeah, Christians have historically almost the only group (other than the Ottoman Empire in 1915) to oppress Christians.

[@hishamalaker491]

How about the Muslims? oh yeah I forgot Muslims are technically justified to be killed and prosecuted by the catholic church your just using the Jews and Orthodox christians to show the extent of ridicliousness and brutality of the Catholic church.

[@robinrehlinghaus1944]

​@@alberthernandezgonzalezYou're biased too, get out

[@aclumsyspycrab5289]

2 episodes in a week? Hopefully, this trend continues and this becomes like a daily 30min turkish soap opera

[@TheoEvian]

"Hirem Sultan, the Franks are at the gates! We must send a messenger to Beyazid!" or something :D

[@girthquake5231]

It's about as believable as a soap opera.

[@burakasik3937]

​@@TheoEvianturkish soap opera plot litterally as a turk

[@TheoEvian]

@@burakasik3937 i know i am referencing one i know

[@eges72]

Bro the soap opera thing got me💀💀 Speaking as someone who once found their mother awake at 5 in the morning binge watching kizilcik serbeti, one of the most awful ones of them💀💀💀

[@Xilir2009]

You did a very big mistake. The muslims were NOT native to that land 12:34 And you ignored the connection with riches and cultural golden age. If the Muslims were raiding the shit out of christian lands and ships and bring home the riches that makes that less people have to work to survive and can specialise on things that do not give immediate survival bonus like algebra. I don't know enough qbout this toppic to support either side and will read into your sources but these clear flaws in logic make me doubt you a lot

[@REAPERthePRUSKIE]

He just said "Muslims" wasn't a thing you couldn't point towards the Middle East and say "Muslim lands" Nobody would do that not until after the first crusade was called Those people were either Persians, Turks, Jews, or Arabs all of which were native to the lands

[@Xilir2009]

@@REAPERthePRUSKIE Exactly

[@Dubstepper]

@@REAPERthePRUSKIE Turks weren't native to that land either reallyw

[@REAPERthePRUSKIE]

@@DubstepperYou lived there for more than 5 generations? You're native

[@Dubstepper]

@@REAPERthePRUSKIE yea, I guess thats fair, though I wouldn't call the Americans of today native americans.

[@Dylan_Devine]

Your understanding of Medieval life is incredibly shallow and is obviously informed by Hollywood and fiction. 10:20 for example is just a horrendous gishgallop of historical errors. What an embarassing attempt at a rebuttal. Edit: After watching your video on "medieval racism," I've realized you get your understanding of history from all those history games you uploaded footage from, and from liberal academia. That explains a lot.

[@davids7646]

This guy is a joke and people just eat it up

[@RandomThing-dg4ph]

He stated no historical errors, because he cited his sources and you didn’t. Seems like your just mad that he’s stating facts which go against your narrative

[@BrentWalker999]

I pity your family

[@bootmii98]

@@RandomThing-dg4ph There's a {{failed verification}} template now. Show me the timestamp and what he misinterpreted.

[@ivanl.1881]

Hope you all have a nice day.

[@tyrannitar-bars]

Thank you Ivan. I hope you also have a sweet day.

[@SuryaGupta-m6j]

Thank you Ivan I hope you and blacksheep both have a nice day as well

[@suwakomoriya5145]

Thanks Ivan, I hope you have a good day too!

[@FEZASA727]

Thanks man, I hope you are doing well too.

[@olekcholewa8171]

A totally nice day?

[@ForelliBoy]

Videos like this make me miss the direct video response fields back in Ancient KZbin

[@norikofu509]

Those were invaded by "cam girls"

[@ForelliBoy]

@@norikofu509 fair enough

[@Beatboxerskills]

@@norikofu509 what do you mean? i remmember the video responses but i dont remember cam girls spamming it

[@yourgrandpa179]

Holy shit that was a thing? That would be a massive deterrent against the echo chambers that the KZbin algorithm tends to propagate.

[@archimedevictor8415]

I checked this video after watching the Pax-Tube one to get both sides. But you are more into denigrating than presenting facts. Sounds too much like propaganda. You must not have a strong case if you have recourse to that kind of tactic.

[@GREEENMASTER]

Though he is right about the Byzantines only asking for mercenaries and not a whole crusade.

[@dragoncaos7098]

@@GREEENMASTER Yes and no. Alexios was expecting a couple thousand mercenaries because there has never been something like a crusade before with the size of the army reaching those of the golden age of the roman empire. If Alexios knew then I'd guess that he would've asked for a crusade.

[@Sheikh_diane]

Pax video was CRAZY biased (i am honestly shocked). Anyone with a bit of a brain sees this "barbarian arab mozzlemz" typ of bias, making it look like arabs were the bad guys with their alleged mass murderd. And then the good, awesome European Christian came....

[@FengBaoYolotli]

cry more, the boot firs

[@rimanahbvee]

The only thing i know of the crusades is that before they even went to the middle east they promptly pillaged their neighbors they didnt like in europe

[@Potatotenkopf]

Europeans pillaging their neighbors, must've been a day that ended in y.

[@Letitcrustandwipe]

Proof?

[@rimanahbvee]

@@Letitcrustandwipe google, wikipedia, several youtube channels talking about crusades

[@Letitcrustandwipe]

​@@rimanahbveeoh yeah those times where christians pillage the nordics yeah i get it bro. But in their eyes paganism is bad, also ever since christianity has introduced to the scandinavia it has paved its way to secularism. Nowadays scandinavia (atheist nation) is now the happiest nation in the world

[@rimanahbvee]

@@Letitcrustandwipe what, im not talking about scandinavia????? im talkin about lets say some french men would prepare to go on crusade, they would then promptly invane any settlements they wish in the way down to jerusalem, lets just say saxony or something

[@elitecoder955]

10:05 Why don't you use this thought process when you mention Christians taking slaves in an earlier point?

[@boogalooter7280]

Because buddy is a typical western guilt hack

[@John_Wall]

I have little doubt that Christian crusaders commited atrocities in the retaking of the Holy Land. But I also have little doubt that similar atrocities were commited by muslims in the taking of the Holy Land.

[@Flintynicomod]

Actually good comment

[@minestar2247]

According to sources, the local populations were surprised at how little fighting the muslims actually did

[@EuGeez]

@@minestar2247 Still, the Muslims converted the locals into their faith. I understand why in those times the Church would respond in such a drastic way.

[@minestar2247]

@@EuGeez they didn't even do that that much, they let you in by choice, if you don't, it's ok, you'll just pay some small tax that's supposed to go to the poor. Unlike the Spanish inquisition, which was extremely fanatical, and did murders on people if they were not christian

[@Neptunes_Bounty]

​@@EuGeezPot calling kettle black.

[@williamhamilton5868]

1. You begin by insulting and attempting to shame the youtuber you're responding too. 2. All of your sources are recent which only reinforces the idea that is is a modern narrative. 3. The vast majority of your critiques are just round about insults. The only reason you have any subscribers I guess is because you're just apart of the same ideology and you champion these dogmatic ideas rather than being critical of yourself and coming to conclusions divorced form propaganda.

[@johndanes2294]

Cope and seethe

[@williamhamilton5868]

busy coping and seething all over your mom@@johndanes2294

[@mishaf19]

“All your sources are recent” THATS INSANELY IMPORTANT! The older a source gets, the less accurate it becomes to modern day scholarship. And “modern narrative” as opposed to what, a narrative from 1800??? Should I listen to Sir “Arabs aren’t human” as my source for the crusades that’s gonna go great 👍

[@williamhamilton5868]

1. If all of the sources prior to the 1950's corroborate each other despite being from different institutions hold validity? 2. If the new rewritten sources can only be corroborated by newer "politically allied" institutions that are pushing the same narrative isn't that sketchy? 3. Everyone wants to the cry that the world is ending, the economy is in shambles and and yada yada, wouldnt that mean the modern narrative isnt working? 4. Are you aware that the saracen hoard was mianly pillaging and destroying small villages, engaged in piracy at an alarmingly high rate, practiced child marriage, and had no regard for women at all throughout history? Even today dubai hires instagram "models" so they can poop on their chest and be tossed from sky scrapers. There was a trending tag #dubaiportapotty about this... @@mishaf19

[@meanbeaver3192]

Isn’t the modern narrative the best one? It only makes sense as new information is discovered. And don’t act like past information is any less biased

[@finntay-yn2rl]

Worth mentioning that the battle of manzikert that he tries to portray as ‘evil Islam’ saw the Seljuks win largely because Byzantine forces either fled or switched sides during the battle, plus Seljuk sultan treated the captured Byzantine emperor with considerable respect afterward showing that there wasn’t the exact same disconnect between Muslims and Christian’s as there were between Christian’s and Muslims

[@Tiridates_the_Great]

Understanding and treasuring historical events for what they were 👎 "We're good guy and you're bad evil stinky muslim"👍

[@eges72]

@@Tiridates_the_Great "It's true because I said so, and it was revealed directly by God himself in my dream"

[@xolotlaxolotl8934]

great video, honestly im surprised how cannibalism keep appering in ancient warfare history every time i read it, a few days ago i read about the mercenary war and that had also an instance of it, it seems that cannibalism is really common in ancient warfare when a siege happens

[@InquisitorThomas]

Pre Industrial War Logistics tended to be pretty shitty, and “pork” tends to be fairly abundant in disease rife sieges.

[@FreddaYT]

One thing I didn't mention is how one source pretty much says "They ate humans, but the bad part was they may have cooked it wrong." And another says "They sometimes ate humans, and even dogs."

[@sinthoras1917]

It partially might have just be a returning motif. Medieval sieges are often described in very similar manners. Sometimes people just assumed that the besieged were surely suffering from sicknesses, when there is no other evidence confirming that. Same can always be true with cannibalism

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

@@sinthoras1917 I'd be interested in seeing an expert or panel of experts separate "folkloric motifs" of siege warfare with "actual practices" & go thru the evidence.

[@sinthoras1917]

@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 Maria Pieschacon-Raffael from the Uni Munich was researching into the sieges of the hundred years war, also covering such things, and I think Prof. Dr. Christof Paulus, also from that Uni, specifically noted such motifs.

[@saemonno-suke9959]

lmao whats with all the adhominems before the video even starts? if there wasnt a unified Christian Identity at the time how did they determine who could stay in the holyland and who had to leave? umm thats right. unified Christianity. Romans in the crusades huh? really? where did they live exactly in the 1000-1200 era? Where were the Greeks in that time? Interesting that a nation of peoples can exist without the nation. Interesting that he supplies a citation (albiet from CNN) but its not a citation? how does that work exactly? How about the number of people they busted on saudi arabia facebook selling people? I made it through 20 minutes of this trash video somehow but I thouroughly enjoyed how you stopped trying to debunk things that happened and hand waved it away as it wasnt large enough to be systematic. Why even make a video like his? Also the Crusade against the Ottomans was the crusade of Varna.

[@Snacks256]

Ask the Cathars about that unified Christian identity thing I guess.

[@gelon3333]

7:05 He did not refer to the barbarians because they were "foreigners", it's literally what historians call the kingdoms formed on the past territory of the western roman empire throughout the 500s, "barbarian kingdoms". I also do not see any bias there in his argument. 9:34 Christians did have holy wars, but the pope and christian rulers did not abuse this casus belli as much as the muslims. They were just invading everyone in their way during umayyad times and eventually got to christian Spain and Anatolia, causing the christians to go in panic and call for a rally against the aggressive expansion. You can argue if not for the victory at the battle of poitiers 732 AD that the umayyads would have taken over France and gone into Europe. The poitiers battle is also why Charles Martel is so acknowledged in Frankish history. I also see you literally glossing over the argument that christians were rightful for doing crusades to try and regain all the lands they lost (remember, christians lost north africa, spain and the levant at that point), you're just trying to justify muslim actions as "christians did it too" and so on. A normal unbiased look at the crusades would be that the pope abused his religious power to try to weaken the muslims and regain the christian lands. I also do agree that pax tube does have bias in his arguments, but you are also no exception. Saying "the crusades are worse than we think" is basically saying "christians are unjustified for trying to regain their lands" You can debate that there was a lot of violence in the crusades, but that was a normal occurence in the middle ages. At the time the muslims weren't "peaceful and smart" like the media depicts them, they basically did the same things as christians, except they started aggressively expanding.

[@maciejbala477]

Fredda himself admits to bias. He said in one of his videos that it's an openly accepted truth in academia that all accounts are biased in some way or the other. Point of the video is to criticize Pax Tube and call him out for making stuff up to suit his agenda, not to present himself as unbiased. He very obviously has a personal bias as he literally admits to in the video, being Norwegian and all that jazz. And criticizing the romanticizing of crusades doesn't mean he's trying to say Muslims are better or anything. Obviously they waged wars of conquest too. Just putting it out there that crusades were called for so that the pope can get more clout, and conquer lands which weren't owned by Christians for centuries at that point (not to mention "Christians" and "Muslims" were largely not viewed as singular entities, Franks never owned the Levant and so on), including brandishing infidels as lesser and encouraging their killings.

[@makeup_tashaqueen]

I was about to write this exact comment. Totally agree with you.

[@maxenswlfr1877]

"Except they agressively expanded" unlike Christians, who were very soft and didn't expand much at all 🥰

[@heavybar3850]

Totally agree.

[@nkoppa5332]

@@maciejbala477well this Norwegian doesn’t seem to have any appreciation for the European. Christians who saved Europe

[@NoahLeaega]

Honestly I Don't Think a Christian Should Focus on Defending Every Single Thing The Church Did.

[@Zane-It]

The crusades are a terrible time in history to glorify it was a big waste of time and life.

[@randallbucholz314]

All those men, both the Crusaders and the Jihadists, lived and died by their faith and achieved a meaningful existence. You will die bitter and alone.

[@chamma505]

@@randallbucholz314RIP bozo💀💀💀💀💀💀

[@davidmason4244]

​@@randallbucholz314image being without purpose and talking about men who actual fought for their god.

[@Jakster840]

​@@randallbucholz314 ok go off, bro lol

[@wikipiiimp9420]

@@randallbucholz314 if being a war criminal is what you consider a good meaningful life, you are deluded.

[@theentmarch]

Both of these videos from Pax-tub and Fredda seem incredibly biased. I never agreed with everything that Pax said when I first watched his video. but I think Fedda goes to some outrageous lengths trying to prove Pax wrong. If you just wanna learn about the Crusades neither of these videos or what you want.

[@iseeundeadpeople9]

Be less vague, Jordan Pterson.

[@rgeronimo9523]

@@iseeundeadpeople9dude are you affiliated with some communist party? I see you responding to every critique comment

[@iseeundeadpeople9]

@@rgeronimo9523 No. Also, these genocide-lovers need better arguments.

[@RJ-bq5mr]

​​@@iseeundeadpeople9that's rich coming from the Muslim defender

[@JeffGordon-ph4vz]

@@iseeundeadpeople9get a better argument bed wetter

[@guernica5413]

The amount of coping from the crusade fetichists on this comment section is both funny and embarrassing

[@olliebased777]

Without them you’d be speaking Arabic and would be paying Jizya if you didn’t convert to Islam, you should be grateful not some emotional bitch who doesn’t get it

[@karimmodewna2457]

​​@@olliebased777he would pay jizya while muslims paying zakat and both are much lesser than the taxes you're paying now also thousands of books won't be burn so humanity will make a faster technological advances and we probably would had industrial revolution 500 years earlier, no crusaders means no military rule in the middle east means no and the golden age will continue Also altho I don't see any problem with speaking Arabic such rich poetic language but he don't have to iran, indonesia, malaysia, pakistan, turkey, center asia, somalia and even berbers and kurds in Arab countries all of them speak their native language I think you're the one who's being an emotional bltch here, buddy

[@CheknoEternity]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@karimmodewna2457 Let’s be real now, neither were the “good” side. Both sides were known for doing horrendous acts of violence towards women and children. I know you’re trying to make the Middle East sound appealing, but they wipe with their hands. Obviously they still have some advancing to do still.

[@karimmodewna2457]

@@CheknoEternity can you give me one historically accurate source says that muslims did horrendous acts egainst women and children? I'm not trying to do anything but showing how stupid the "bOtH arE bAd" argument is If you're going to make a historical claim please support it with historically accurate source cuz I didn't see muslims doing 1% of what crusaders did, in fact I didn't see that even in quran or hadith unlike the things in the bible about crushing babies heads on rocks and cutting pregnant women stomach and killing everything that moves even animals

[@karimmodewna2457]

@@CheknoEternity also you didn't prove that anything I said in my comment was wrong

[@dragonmaster9156]

8 minutes in and still not a single historical inaccuracy has been pointed out from the original Pax Tube video. You've only stated that his source is biased, but never actually shown why it's incorrect. You've spent 8 minutes of a video basically saying nothing other than slandering the person you're supposed to be debunking, and yet you called him out for trying to explain the intricacy of the Crusades in 15 minutes. I'm going to do the same as you did to the "biased source" Pax Tube provided, and disregard this video as a biased source and as such inadmissible as evidence against the Crusades.

[@dhimankalita1690]

Seems like you've purposefully ignored all he debunking. You can't expect to see the truth by closing your eyes.Pax is a wannabe KZbin historian and doesn't understand history which is evident from his dumb videos.The ct that he thinks crusade was something good is itself evidence of his delusional state of mind.

[@algernonsidney8746]

He spends round half the video meticulously debunking what pax tube has to say.

[@ajuuran2890]

Yeah just watch 8 Minutes and not the rest. That’s truly a good mindset

[@Inventor1488]

​@@ajuuran2890muslim cope

[@FengBaoYolotli]

@@Inventor1488papist

[@wormius7350]

Pax Tube is a very interesting KZbinr. He falls in nearly perfectly with the “tradcath” stereotype. This reared its head most recently in his video where he bashed Protestantism for twenty minutes. There were many strawmans, uncharitable representations, and outright slander against the Reformers. He is a very poor historian and very uncharitable Christian. Honestly his obsession with anime only makes me lose any semblance of respect I had for him beforehand.

[@HopeyCraft]

uh yeah but, have you considered that maybe the Reformation WAS worse than you think?

[@salzigerfranz1291]

Sry, i can't take anyone seriously who takes the southern poverty law centre as a credible source.

[@BarkleyBCooltimes]

Is that because it hurts your feelings?

[@SmittyWerbenJag3rmanJenson]

Man it must suck being unable to accept reality, did the SPLC hurt your fee fees?

[@salzigerfranz1291]

@@SmittyWerbenJag3rmanJenson It's really funny to hear that from you.

[@salzigerfranz1291]

@@BarkleyBCooltimes did the glorious Crusades hurt yours?

[@davidmason4244]

@@SmittyWerbenJag3rmanJenson or what about the professor cope and seethe who royally dissed your ass.

[@niflheimm-yt]

10:05 You feel the need to point out that although Christians being second class citizens and enslaved en masse is true, it was the Middle Ages so most people didn't have great lives? Not only is it disturbing that you're defending that mistreatment, it's also hypocritical because it's a crystal clear case of you doing exactly the same sort of narrative building you're accusing Pax Tube of doing. "Sure, Christians were second class citizens and many were enslaved, but slavery also existed in the non-Muslim areas and nobody was living very well anyway, so it's not really that bad if you think about it" And then as soon as I finish typing that comment, I unpause and continue watching only for you to do the exact same thing again by pointing out that Jews were also treated badly in Christian lands! That's completely unrelated, and there's absolutely zero reason for you to bring it up other than to continue to minimize the seriousness of the mistreatment going on. It would be like someone trying to minimize how terrible American slavery was by pointing out that poor white people also had hard lives, and anyhow slavery still existed in Africa and the Middle East.

[@camefaceh8380]

Lol yeah noticed that too. You could literally justify slavery in the 1800s using this logic, like 99% of humans in 1860 were basically serfs who were effectively slaves in all but name only. This video started off well and then it becomes clear he's just as biased in his own narrative as the other guy. Also you could justify just about any invasion the way he has with Islamic invasions: "well there was actually a lot of collaboration and there were good things that came out of it and actually they weren't that bad the reaction of the people threatened by this invasion was way worse and muslims weren't a monolith" lol that's every invasion ever but it's only bad when blondes do it.

[@somerandomcanuck9432]

​@camefaceh8380 I don't know if it started well as well... I mean if his goal is to persuade people, bashing them, calling them insults and belittling them is not exactly the best way to begin a 31 minute video. It causes many to just click off cause he has already shown that he just wants to win a proverbial battle, not genuinely educate. But then again both creators are just catering to their viewers, the viewers will say that you wrong, me right. The crusades are just a facate of history, just like the early Muslim conquests. Fascinating pieces of history, but to look upon them with a modern viewpoint will just be redundant if you want to say everything was bad. In that case one could just say all wars had these atrocities happen, the Crusades weren't holy unique in that regard.

[@mishaf19]

I don’t think that’s what Freda is trying to get at. I think it’s more that saying the crusades were justified on the basis on Christian exploitation is not a good one because Christian’s did it to themselves just as much as Muslims did.

[@camefaceh8380]

@@somerandomcanuck9432 exactly, he’s missed the mark by catering to his viewers, because if he’d continued in a rational, unbiased vein he would actually convince more people to agree with him. The original video, on the other hand, comes off strangely less biased than this one and so is more convincing.

[@maridan48]

Fredda isn't "defending slavery", he's pointing thatt he framing of Muslims as these specially evil slavers is incorrect , as the practice was widespread in the middle ages. It's not "slave is good", it's "it's a sad widespread reality of the its time".

[@McFrax]

The blatant ad personam introduction you start with really puts a shade on everything that comes after.

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

How is the start a personal attack?

[@meatyspartanguy]

@@augustuslunasol10thapostle Accusations of inceldom

[@DirtyDan77]

Yeah that's really a great way to start a conversation "everyone who disagrees with me is an incel!"

[@GerardDeRideford]

Typical soytard debate

[@the_demilich1312]

I hope you will recover from his triggering language.

[@dr0g_Oakblood]

"The Islamic Golden Age came at the expense of Europe" - I'm sorry, **what**. Maybe this is a wider-held view among conservative christians than I realize, given that the conservative christians that I am exposed to personally tend to be more well-educated than some, but I don't think that even my bigoted godfather (that has literal Christian Nationalist texts in his library) would go as far as this nonsense, considering how I am much more used to the conservative talking point about how "actually the Islamic Golden Age was really just them embracing Greek philosophy", in short acknowledging the Islamic Golden Age while also taking credit for it, (since as we know, conservatives love to claim Greek philosophy as their own, at least in my experience), so this guy is just straight up even more Islamophobic than I am used to hearing even among conservative christian circles lmao.

[@Mag_ladroth]

I don't get why Christians take credit for greek philosophy?

[@dr0g_Oakblood]

@@Mag_ladroth In short, jerking themselves off in a philosophical sense. You could probably make a fairly long KZbin video about the co-opting of Greek philosophy by Christian Conservatives, but I think you can really just summarize it as I have.

[@dr0g_Oakblood]

Like I kid you not, to underline a point, my godfather and his son (who was visiting from a conservative Catholic college) had a discussion over Father's Day dinner over who they liked more between Plato and Aristotle, with both of them of course disliking Socrates.

[@norikofu509]

Most "innovations" or "Ideas" from that era actually came from Persia

[@kovacsnovak6745]

​@@norikofu509Persia as a territory or smth else?

[@nanowithbeans2511]

This guy thinks the french revolution was bad by the way

[@mrvictorian4004]

Yooo based?

[@LPVince94]

@@ManiacMayhem7256 What strikes me as weird is that guys like PaxTube unironically do this thing where they say "the french revolution has killed x amount of people and that's why it's bad". But more people were killed during the siege of Jerusalem alone than during the reign of terror.

[@kavky]

Was? Still is.

[@asdfkgkspr284]

@@kavky^this dude loves absolutist monarchy

[@hedgehog3180]

@@ManiacMayhem7256 Viewing the Reign of Terror as a direct result of the revolution and not so more when it's ideals died doesn't make a lot of sense though.

[@tyresr]

“I hope you die soon” Is definitely one of the ways of all time to end a youtube video.

[@tyresr]

@@Jahommmmmmtirrrrrrrrrrrrrrr “Oh you support communism? That rhetoric caused millions of people to die. So I’m justified in thinking you don’t deserve to live any longer.” That’s unhinged.

[@pissbabychudcel]

@@Jahommmmmmtirrrrrrrrrrrrrrr "communism is when the government does what i want but if it doesnt do what i want it's NOT TRUE COMMUNISM"

[@איןסוף]

@@pissbabychudcelread theory.

[@pissbabychudcel]

​@@איןסוף >read theo-ACCCKKKKKK ywnbaw bunkertroon

[@madmouse4400]

​@@Jahommmmmmtirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnever in my life I have ever encountered a KZbin content creator with a little bit of respect for himself and other saying such a thing when talking about someone or refuting an argument. That's Vaush level of spitefulness .

[@educateyourself3872]

So Fredda, from your own video “Arabs” had conquered Armenia 400 years before (the Crusades)”. From my research, Armenia was the first state in the world to adopt Christianity as the official religion in 301. This basically is right in line with Pax’s point that there was justification in the Crusades and that Islamic countries were a threat to Christendom. You said “the Armenians and Arabs fought side by side”, which doesn’t mean anything either. Conquered people often fight alongside their conquerers, usually by force… so what?

[@Rynewulf]

But at the time of the crusades the Armenians were often part of the Crusaders targets for conquest, and not liberated in Crusader areas.

[@educateyourself3872]

@@Rynewulf It probably was a welcome conquest due to the fact that Christians were taxed by their Muslim occupiers and viewed as second class citizens. Even if what you say were true, it doesn’t mean anything because Armenia was conquered first by the Arab invaders, so it doesn’t change the fact that the Crusades were retaliatory.

[@Rynewulf]

@@educateyourself3872 but the Crusades werent retaliation for land conquest, they were a response to 1) Eastern Roman request for military forces from the Papacy and 2) Recent change in Seljuk policy regarding international access to Jerusalem. And those who responded were mostly French aristocrats, who betrayed their sworn obligations to the Eastern Roman emperor at almost every turn, including refusing to hand over the promised conquered land to them and even starting military fights against them and once in Jerusalem the Crusaders massacred almost the entire populace no matter religion or age, to the horror of contemporary Christendom (alongside the cannibalism due to poor food logistics but thats a side point). After which they segregated Jerusalem and expelled non Catholic Christians, Jews and Muslims to a far harsher extent than the Seljuks they were supposedly saving the region from. At the end of the day to the origins comments, Armenia has little to do with the Crusades, and they fought against Crusader Kings of Cyprus and Antioch due to border disputes in Anatolia and ultimately secured their greatest medieval freedom and extent under the initially Pagan and then Muslim convert Mongols. You could argue the chaos allowed them to declare independence in their southernmost region in Cilicia, but the Crusaders repeatedly tried to annex them and force Catholicism on them at sword point, and they didnt even bother trying to reclaim the rest of Armenia on behalf of Christendom at all. Thats not exactly anyones idea of noble Crusaders defending Christian Armenia

[@educateyourself3872]

@@Rynewulf all of what you say was par for the course though given the time period and how wars were conducted. There wasn’t anything unique about the Crusaders in that respect. Additionally, the Crusades were indeed retaliatory. Your points 1 and 2 prove that.

[@educateyourself3872]

@@Rynewulf I checked about the promise to the Eastern Roman leader. Many sources are saying it was a demand from him when the Crusaders got there, and that they gave him a city but his army didn’t come to help secure the other one, so they didn’t give it to him. It seems a little unrealistic to expect they would die to get the land and then just turn around and give it to him, so even if they made a promise and broke it, it doesn’t seem bad to me.

[@nopt8191]

My man just called someone an incel because the "incel" defended the crusades, I loce how centuries of muslim agression are overshadowed by Christian retribution , you put as many sources as you want , you will be wrong

[@Fatelovesirony960]

Exactly, Nevermind the fact he ignores the Ottoman slave trade which took 1 million slaves.

[@Tijaxtolan]

​@@Fatelovesirony960because this video is about the crusades Speaking about the ottomans would be a whataboutism

[@thepakistanipotato]

These kids are the type of people who call Muslim conquests “aggression” and Spanish conquests and colonialism in the americas “based”

[@nopt8191]

@@thepakistanipotato Oh yeah because muslim conquest were only in Iberia ?, or are you stupid or what?

[@freddy105]

@@thepakistanipotato fellow pakistani here sup bruh

[@patrickszyman4152]

Did you just assert that this man is a terrorist because he defends the crusades and used the same website that a terrorist once used on the crusades as a reference?

[@kaletovhangar]

Not a terrorist but propagandist for those.

[@Inventor1488]

​@@kaletovhangarsay Christ is king communist

[@kaletovhangar]

@@Inventor1488 I'm not a communist, and I do have faith, but not joining your crusades.

[@FengBaoYolotli]

@@Inventor1488Your imaginary friend isn’t real

[@CantusTropus]

​@@kaletovhangarIf you're a Christian, why won't you say Christ is King?

[@Intiworshipper]

Please tell me you also mention his anti-semitism in Twitter.

[@FreddaYT]

I did not.

[@Intiworshipper]

@@FreddaYT:(

[@something1600]

@@FreddaYT Make a part 2 then.

[@Riskofdisconnect]

Man must have really liked old fashioned Catholicism if he even jumped on the anti-semitism train.

[@hamzaalikhan9932]

This guy is genuine and honest- he does not stray away from the point too much by targeting his opponent’s character and personality, he sticks to the point, debates their ARGUMENTS and finishes the job. He is not like fraudulent debaters who conveniently ignore our arguments and instead spend all their time bashing our actions and personality because they can’t debate our argument. Trust me, I’ve seen too many of them on twitter

[@GratefulPrimate]

Why did you feel the need to attack the PaxTube guy as an "incel" and other ad hominen name calling? No need to make this so personal. Just address his facts and ideas and let us decide who's slinging bullsh!t here

[@kszug]

what are you on bro, he literally argued with his points, the fact that he called him an incel doesn't discredit anything else he said

[@christianmiller9934]

If it talks and walks like an uncle it probably is one lmao

[@carrots4216]

I really dislike this take because it misuses the ad hominem fallacy and uses it as an excuse to no actually address the greater point. Him calling paxtube an incel isnt an argument its just an observation/insult, which is mean sure but its not ad hominem. Also, i think it did shed some light on the greater issue of lonely young men that glorify the aesthetic of christianity if anything. The final thing is that he DID address and tackle his points and rather elegantly i think, focusing on one comment is kinda weird.

[@eges72]

GOTCHA HAHA STVPIVD COMMVE!!!111

[@Grundlepimp]

That like/dislike ratio is not looking so good right now.

[@FreddaYT]

80% is not that bad for a controversial video

[@azlanadil3646]

Like Jesus, they persecute him for speaking truth.

[@U8mymicro]

Ive watched this for 15 minutes because I was genuinely interested in your counter argument. I could spend 1000 words citing your exact words but i simply dont care to use that time that way. This is youtube not your history 101 class at harvard please stop tryin to take intellectual high ground by antagonizing sources and please make a point. No Islam was not reffered to as barbarians he stated barbarians in europe would convert while islam would operate differently after their astounding victories against the Zoroastrians and the Christians(romans). His point is valid and to make him seem like a bigot for a quick concise description of what happened over the course of 200 years is intellectual dishonest. The to try to say islam was more concerned with rival powers in their own religion rather than christians shows no actual understanding of what happened. They were under one caliphate until the first schism of their faith sunni and shia. All of their inital conquests were against other faiths as islam was not a geopolitical power before their stunning victories. I don't even agree with the initial author that the crusades were justified. But please actually make points instead of using other authors works for paragraphs and then say see I cited them look how smart I am. Have some of your own points.

[@FreddaYT]

"But please actually make points instead of using other authors works for paragraphs and then say see I cited them look how smart I am. Have some of your own points." You are asking that I literally make things up instead of citing historical evidence.

[@U8mymicro]

@@FreddaYT LOL no not even close to what i said. Starting to understand your argument style a little bit. You reduce the argument to something you can take the moral high ground on. You know as well as I do if you turned in a paper with only quotes on it with no actual points you would failed. You cannot use other people work and ideas as a supliment for your own argument. But go on be the victim all you want. Again i was actually interested in your counter argument.

[@FreddaYT]

@@U8mymicro I've handed in history papers at a university for 5+ years. I've never failed, this is exactly how I write papers. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

[@ecatskid]

You are supposed to use sources in history what are you talking about

[@SusIMPOSTER-eg2pj]

@@FreddaYT xir, history essay written about a primary source does not equal historical evidence. This is not reddit wholesome chungus but I pr*y to Science that the Force be with you.

[@insertnamehere1258]

I’ve also seen some Christian KZbinr that said that the Crusades were not as bad as they were (I don’t remember his name, but I remember one of his videos was called “History of Christianity, I guess”. Edit: Channel Name wad Reformed Zoomer.

[@coryfice1881]

"Real" Crusades history? Yeah. I remember him.

[@insertnamehere1258]

@@coryfice1881 I remember now, that the channel was Reformed Zoomer.

[@cleaverenjoyer]

He didn’t say that they we’re necessarily great, he just stated that they weren’t how most high school teachers say they were

[@goyonman9655]

​@@insertnamehere1258 He was wrong for being concerned about how bad YOU believe it is

[@CollinRezac]

That wasn't a Crusades video that was a history of Christianity and he said they weren't that succesful

[@Western-Supremacist]

Video starts with an Ad hominem, strangley trying to suggest that Pax is an incel pervert. Just weird. Goes on to a strawman argument, suggests that Pax is trying to create one long narrative by conflating all conflicts that happened into one group. Later in the video Pax mentions other battles and even the atrocities committed on both sides. He simply says that this period and series of conflicts are commonly known as 'The Crusades' which is perfectly accurate. Your manipulation of this simply statement of truth speaks to the agenda you're pushing, even this early on in the video. 6:20 you accuse Pax of being dishonest by referencing the 'Christian world' which was not something that existed. In the video he acknowledges this and even explains that this period gave rise to this idea of unity for the first time and even quotes a Pope asking that national squabbles be put to bed for this greater good. Something you actually allude to just before you make this accusation? Either you didn't properly watch the video or you are the one being dishonest here. This is extremely unscrupulous. 7:15 You accuse Pax of Bias because he uses the term barbarians. Maybe he just does this in historic context? Rome called anyone they fought barbarians. Would it be more PC to mention specific peoples? Sure. But are the names of those specific people relevant to the overall narrative? No. Could this be showing his bias? maybe. Do you know that for certain or you just assuming that because of your own bias? also maybe. Got to 8:30 and I might have heard enough! You're comparing the west of today's moral imperative to spread good values with the all out war and invasion practiced by early Islam where they were offering Islam or death?! REALLY? A better comparison would be with Hitler, don't you think? When Christianity got to Africa they were offered a set of values which they voluntarily adopted. When Islam came it came with the sword. I flicked through the rest, it didn't get any better. Even the last bit mentioning that nutter that blew up the Norwegian parliament? How is that relevant? What are you implying? Pax didn't stoop to mentioning modern Jihadists and terrorists, but you did! You stooped to that pathetic level! And it would have been so much easier for him. But he stayed on point while you digressed. Then you add more ad hominems by insulting his intelligence. You're the personification of the Dunning Kruger effect. The core of Pax's argument was that the crusades were reactionary to Islamic aggression. This is often ignored. What is routinely taught and believed is that Muslim's were just minding their own business in the middle east when Europeans came and attacked them for no reason. This is the point Pax was making, and that's why his video was only 15 minutes long and why essentially some of the details that you tried to make a big thing out of didn't matter. I think it's very likely that you're a left wing anti-western shill. Probably a Noam Chomsky reader. If I'm wrong I apologise. But I have today watched Pax's video and then this one came up in the suggestions so I clicked it immediately afterwards. His was basic and Christocentric, but mostly accurate in what it was attempting to get across. Yours was a poor hit piece that didn't even address the core point. Waste of time.

[@jimmafoo9013]

The tweet in and of itself is weird. Fredda didnt suggest anything on the basis of the tweet, he just read it out at face value before moving to his cumulative stance on Paxtube's character. The fact that you think he did implies that u agree the tweet is disturbing lmao. He's not using it in an historic context because he himself is attempting to convey a point using the terminlogy. He is not reiterating a previously held sentiment for the purpose of historical information. Your timestamp here isn't even correct for the portion of the video you're talking about. He is comparing the Islamic imperialist agenda to spread values as understood by them within that time period as being "good" with the modern western world's inperialist agenda to spread values as understood by them within their time period as being "good". This is an incredible strawman and you either didn't watch the video carefully enough or you're just being thickheaded on purpose. He is not implying but rather clearly explaining that the modern day attempts at morally justifying what most historians and rational Catholics agree was a downright gruesome offense to God directly fuels the type of extremist sentiment that lead to the Norwegian parliament bombing. Again, I don't think you watched the video carefully enough. It was basic insofar that Paxtube only appears to have a basic understanding of history, thanks for confirming this. Christocentric, absolutely not. Lot's of buzzwords and ad hominems half of which don't even seem to make sense in the context of this video's arguments. Quite frankly this is an embarrasing comment and you're evidently not as smart as you probably think you are. There's still time to delete this.

[@Western-Supremacist]

@@jimmafoo9013 sure, the tweet is weird. But no weirder than Freddos long winded rant where he implies that Pax is an incell and a pervert. Or are you justifying this because the tweet was weird!? Explain how that isn't an ad hominem? Which is what I said. Explain how that isn't a character assassination and then explain how it's relevant to the crusades? How do you know he isn't using it in a historic? You're assuming without evidence. I admit that it would have been more PC to be specific but also state that it isn't really relevant to the over all point of the video. Which is correct. To suggest malice when ignorance or oversight would explain it needs proof or evidence. Which is lacking from both Freddo and yourself. I am well aware of what Freddo was implying. But it's an apples and oranges comparison. Because the METHOD of how those values are spread is where the true context lies. If you can't see that then you're definitely not as smart as you think you are. Freddo is excusing Islamic aggression by trying to compare its motives rather than the methods used. This is EXTREMELY dishonest. So no, this isn't a strawman, it's just calling out BS that you either lack the sense or integrity to see. You're only half replying to my points. Which is just as dishonest and backwards as this video. No wonder. HOW IS THE NORWEGIAN NUTTER RELEVANT? Either pax's position is right or it isn't. Nothing that any right wing extremists do will change that. Any more than pointing out how many islamic terrorists there are today would justify the crusades. It's a silly argument and bringing it up is silly. It's propagandist in nature and is not intellectually sound because it's completely and utterly irrelevant. The fact that you're justifying it and then question my intelligence is staggering. If only you were intelligent enough to understand the irony. It's hysterical! You're like a case study for the dunning Kruger effect. It was basic in that the point he was making was that the crusades were largely reactionary to islamic aggression. (I stated this clearly). To make that point there's only so much detail you need to go into. And Pax made his point relatively well for what it was. He also said that one of the good things that came out of it was that for the first time there became a more clear and unified European Christian identity. He proved both points and Freddos video didn't even engage with those points let alone disprove them... A pointless endeavour and a mere hitpiece with zero intellectual input. Just propagandistic nonsense. What about the other points I made that you have chosen not to engage with? Are you ceding them? Because even those are very damning. But your entire post was a fail. I'm definitely NOT deleting this comment. I just sincerely hope you're dumb enough to respond. Shows the true calibre of Freddo fans. Low.

[@Western-Supremacist]

@@jimmafoo9013 I replied once and it appears the reply has vanished. Did you report it!? How typical. You don't even know what an ad hominem is. You accuse me of using ad hominems but I very clearly haven't. There's a subtlety to this that appears to have gone over your head. Let's see if you're smart enough to work out why what I did isn't a true ad hominem. Of course you aren't. But the attempt will at least be humorous. Then maybe I'll re-post my response which you or someone appears to have reported because ideas scare you.

[@jimmafoo9013]

@@Western-Supremacist KZbin auto-removes comments it deems violates its community guidelines, which means your repsonse likely had more choice words to say about me than actual arguments. I'm not going to sit here and engage in this tired argument and explain what logical fallacies are to you. Idk what it is with you internet smugasses and your hyperfixation on argumentation fallacies as a one-size-fits-all rebuttal to anything you dont like lmao. Repost your response with better wording and we can go from there.

[@jimmafoo9013]

@@Western-Supremacist KZbin auto removes comments it deems in violation of community guidelines. Seems to be that your comment had more choice words about me than it did actual arguments. Repost your reply with better wording and we can go from there, I'm not going to sit here and explain to you what argumentation fallacies are. Google is free.

[@spotsthenpc7796]

Pax tube has a personal blog you can find by looking deep in his channels info. He is a christian fascist who considers catholism the only "true" religion, has some weird anti porn rhetoric (he wants AI to ban it) and constantly blogs about it, reads Mousolini (?????) and has spicy takes on race he doesnt mention in his videos. He is also pro Russia and is obsessed with attack on titan. Edit: EXTREME ANTI SEMITE

[@ChiefMasterGuru]

How much do you want to bet his anti porn stance is projection about his own guilt from watching copious hentai (average weeb)

[@phr3ui559]

ty

[@kitcloudkicker14]

As an Attack on Titan fan, I apologize for people having to endure that weirdo. I'm surprised he ended up as such a catholic fascist when, unironically, Eren would have been one of the biggest opposers of something like the catholic church due to his libertine nature, in the sense he always speaks his mind without minding what society might think of him. Also, in the freaking first opening there are lyrics that literally say: "Prayers won't save us". Something that any christian would find atheistic or offensive to the christian faith lol.

[@milanstrbik2094]

If you actually watched the videos he explains why, and all of them are valid points.

[@kitcloudkicker14]

@@milanstrbik2094 There will be never be a valid point to religious fanatism and racism. Dude it's just a fascist that sees catholicism as a medium to justify or enable tyrannies. It's not even a christian vs atheist thing, dude literally wants to restore inquisitions to erradicate every non-catholic thinking and that includes every protestant denomination. That shit would never pass in some place like the United States, UK or France. Dude is a delusional reactionary.

[@SuperMrMuster]

There is a methodological error you committed. You compared and juxtaposed the Crusaders first conquering Muslims to Muslims conquering Christians during the Crusades' period. Instead, the appropriate comparison would have been Muslim conquest of Christian lands, to which you well know the Crusades were a response to. Tariq ibn Ziyad is said to have made a great pile of skulls of Spaniards in Spain. A companion of Mohammed is said to have raped the wife of his Christian enemy in a pool of the late husband's blood, when they conquered the then-Christian Middle East.

[@chrisgaming9567]

It's hilarious that, in a "newest first" order, this comment is directly below one pointing out how ridiculous this exact point is.

[@Sheragust]

The Crusades came half a millennia after the Islamic conquests of Byzantium and Persia in the 600's which has nothing to do with the Franks, English or Germans that made the frontline of the Crusades, this is like Mexico waging war on England now because of the events that happened 400 years ago between Spain and England just a stupid and reductionist way of ready history. The Crusades were launched because of the Byzantium empire demand for help after failing to defend against the Suljics. Also who is having double standards here ? So what if the Turks make an expansionist empire on the expense of the Romans ? didn't the Romans also conquer these very same territories ? As for the Companion of Mohammed story, it's laughable how you don't even have a name of said companion but I can't find any story of the raped Christian wife this is just your fantasy. The Muslims ruled the Iberian Peninsula for more than 700 years but they still kept a Christian majority during that time, there is no evidence of genocide happening against the Christians and forced conversions only happened during the Almoravid & Almohad dynasties in the 11 to 12th century 400 years after the Conquests.

[@sarwatarannya8786]

It is said? Where is it said? ISIS used to spread rumours that the Christian church used needles to turn children homosexual, is it some kind of reputable source like that?

[@run4fun143]

That wouldnt fit his biased lizard brain... lol

[@timurtheterrible4062]

The conquest of Spain was 300 years before the crusade. The crusades were not a response to them.

[@tauempire1793]

I was checking this video again and honestly its kinda depressing to think about. Pax tubes video has over 3 million views at this moment, this video under 400k at this moment. Over 3 million accounts had saw his video many of whom naive individuals or those that lack context and therefore will start basing their views off misinformation, meaning even if there are people here that saw this video and cleared up their opinions there are still many who are still misinformed and carry this misinformed belief and there are videos that defend the crusades with more views than this video, its just depressing to see

[@brn_4456]

This also makes me sad. Hate and basic narratives which makes you feel good for nothing sell better than any serious interaction with History. Instagram is full of these based-Christian incels who misuse anything Historical to make straightup r@cist claims and posts. I’m never wasting time by arguing with them, but it’s sad to see how many people fall for these narratives and follow them.

[@Hollero71]

@@brn_4456 both of the videos spread misinformation. Paxtube leaves out the atrocities committed by the Crusaders and Fredda leaves out the atrocities committed by the Muslims, both doing so to convince the viewer that their point of view is the correct one.

[@brn_4456]

@ Not really, Paxtube doesn’t mention the Crusaders Crimes because he wants to paint a picture of a „justified crusade“. Fredda doesn’t mention Muslim atrocities because this video is about Christian Atrocities. Why should he divert and talk about something else? Now you’d say because it gives context to the crimes the crusaders committed, and you’d be right. And in this regard he frequently mentions how some acts were committed by both sides, e.g the execution of civilians or other Atrocities during the crusade. But the main reason he really doesn’t talk about „big“ Muslims atrocities is because there were none during the talked about crusade. The Christians invading committed a kind of destructive and Genoc!dal conquest which more reminds me of Romes conquest of Carthage than any other war of the time period. it really gives light to the kind of extraordinary war the 1st Crusade was, it wasnt just another medieval conquest, it was the first time since rome that europeans slaughtered their way through foreign lands, the crusades paved the way for Modern R@cism and European Imperialism. the defending Muslims werent on the same scale when it came to these kinds of massacre, and im not trying to depict them as saints. Before and after the crusade Muslims also massacred populations, but if the point is to show Crusader Massacres its not helpful to whataboutism about muslim crimes which were centuries before/after it.

[@Hollero71]

@ the crusades in principle were justified but obviously there were things the crusaders did that weren’t. Sacking a city after you conquered it was pretty normal in that time period so I wouldn’t say that it was some new level of cruelty. Saying it was a genocidal conquest is also pretty ridiculous as no cities were destroyed and by the end of the first crusade there were still way more locals than crusaders, modern estimates put the number at around 100,000. That doesn’t sound like a genocide to me but Carthage on the other hand was completely leveled and almost all of the Carthaginians were killed. It was just another medieval conquest but you seem to take more of an offense to it because it was Europeans making war on non Europeans. The crusades were not about race or imperialism as most of the crusaders were pilgrims led by a group of nobles from various different parts of Europe, primarily French during the first crusade.

[@brn_4456]

@ You seem to still follow a rather conservative set of Historical Narratives. 1: the Crusade was not justified by any ethical or Religious way. I’m not Christian but taking all your soldiers and going to another continent to massacre civilians is not very Christian, I’m sure Jesus would like that they didn’t happen. 2: the Crusades were VERY brutal, especially by their Times. You are right, Sacking a city after conquering it was more or less normal, but the Crusaders were on another league of Hatred against Muslims, which originated in Religious fever by the Catholic Church to give this Conquest a Religious Justification. The Crusaders k!lled every citizen of Antioch, Muslim or Christian when they took it. When they took Jerusalem they slaughtered every Muslim in the city, forced the few surviving ones to drag and bury their dead families before being k!lled themselves. They burned, looted and destroyed their way towards Jerusalem. They had no respect to the Local Muslims, oppressed or outright murdered them when possible and used this combined Rhetoric of Religious and newly added Racial Superiority to justify it. The Crusade in that sense was the emergence of European sense of Superiority over the rest of the world, the enemies in the levant weren’t just Muslim, they were Sarazens and not Europeans and not Christian. Later When the Ottomans Conquered the Southeast of Europe and Marched towards the Heart of Christendom it was not just Muslims, but Muslims AND Turks. 3: You trying to portray the Crusade as any kind of Normal Conquest is quite astounding to me, can I ask if you say this because you genuinely believe it or do you see these Christian Massacres as not bad? Why do you think they are bad, because everyone did them or because they were „justified“? I want to know how you came to your conclusions so we can reach a point where we agree.

[@1ooAcreWoods]

You lost me with the insults and attacks. 1:56 "a fantasy of incels that have never felt the touch of a woman" The insults weaken your argument by showing your emotions are front and center. no matter how "deadpan" you deliver the insult.

[@gendoss]

lmao cry more

[@meanbeaver3192]

Jesus Christ…. Not a single one of you reactionary’s in the comments actually have a response to this guy. Yes, he insulted him. As political KZbinrs often do. However that does not discredit any of the information given by the creator of this video. Just look at how many sources he has compared to paxtube

[@davids7646]

​@meanbeaver3192 there are plenty of response from people in comment talking about the sources and terrible argument just because you dont see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

[@onenine8430]

You have your own biases too. I disagree with you on some of the points you made. Why don’t you two settle this down over a debate?

[@marcoeire44]

Communist scum does not debate. This is the case with them all, they don't have a leg to stand on in a real debate.

[@alexlaw1892]

He would lose and he knows it.

[@Kapnboc]

@@alexlaw1892 ik im 6 months late, but fr tho

[@Frserthegreenengine]

Oh I've seen this guy before. He made a video "debunking" one of my favourite KZbinrs, Atun-Shei Films, who made a video about Confederate monuments. Basically Pax defend the Confederacy, the Lost Cause Myth and accuses Atun of dismissing anything that doesn't paint the confederate as blood-thirsty and evil rebels as "propaganda", which is gross simplication of what Atun-Shei Film thinks. Pax obviously never watched any of his other videos (especially his Checkmate Lincolnite videos, which are really good, I recommend them) where he doesn't think all Confederates were evil, blood-thirsty monsters but doesn't shy away from the fact that most of them were indeed pro-slavery and we need to stop praising them as "heroes of states rights". I also saw another Pax video where he complains about "fake democracies". He picks three countries as examples of "fake democracy" and how they were forced to replace their legitimate governments before. The three "fake democratic" countries he picks are: Germany, Japan and Italy. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

[@senatorbrogle]

idk how you can defend that dude when his point was that "saying that this would escalate to founding father statues being torn down is dumb ok" and then made a comment once the founding father statues got destroyed openly supporting that

[@davidmason4244]

@@senatorbrogle as someone who's making a defense of the south its clear that Atun Shei arguments aren't good enough and his points are very lousy. in one of his videos he literally makes the confederate transform into a nazi so how is pax tube wrong when claiming an obvious bias ? Anyway its not surprising that this person would refer to him being most of this comment section is a lefty circle jerk.

[@seanhartnett79]

I accidentally clicked it. I thought it was about how Japan basically only has one political party.

[@damianjblack]

@@seanhartnett79 so does the US: the Bought-By-Big-Corporations Party. It just pretends to be two parties because half of it is Dominionists.

[@DustinDonald-cz9ot]

Yet the man never mentions the Corwin Amendment which was championed by Lincoln which would of been our 13th amendment and would of forbid the federal government to have a say on the issues of slavery and leaving it up to the states to decide which would of been ratified had the south not left the voluntary union and voted for this legislation which had a majority already in the northern states. Or how the emancipation proclamation exempted northern slave holding states and would also exempt any southern state should it choose to rejoin the union. Funny how it was over slavery when the north not only voted to ratify a bill which would of allowed slavery to continue but also the so called proclamation that allegedly ended slavery allowed exemptions to north slave holding states and would allow slavery to continue in the south should it choose to rejoin the union. So I fail to see how it was about slavery cause if the souths primary concern was over slavery they had multiple opportunities to keep it without leaving the union or rejoining the union. So there must of been another reason why they choose not to and I am going to say it was the same reason they almost left some 30 years prior due to the huge tariffs placed on them which rose to over 50% before Lincoln even took office, they began leaving a couple weeks after it was raised. The tariff which was placed on southern ports generated about 83% of the total tariffs of the Federal Government and Fort Sumpter was a place that collected this tariff that Lincoln enforced with ships and troops six months prior to the war breaking out. Also the south at the time produced about 80% of the worlds cotton and tobacco it was a cash cow and as Lincoln stated himself his main objective was to maintain the union and to levy taxes.

[@settratheimperishable7800]

The fact that Pax COMPLETELY brushed over the Siege of Constantinople and just claimed that the Crusades were the greatest thing to ever happen to Christianity was just insulting.

[@thenobody1641]

Paxtube literally called the fourth crusade a dismal failure

[@fenixchief7]

​@@thenobody1641 yeah, I dunno what he expects.

[@daniel8181]

I heard a story once about crusaders burning down a sinagogue while it was full of worshippers, while surrounding it and singing "ave maria" I was sad to learn it was unsourced.

[@Moderately_Merciless]

"He glossed over the only point I have!" But he didn't, he went into detail as others have already said.

[@ShepardCZ]

By your logic, liberating western europe from nazism was bad because allied soldiers raped, murdered POWs and bombed cities.

[@davidkuzmanov3925]

This video was about as informative as the Pax Tubes. Purposely leaving out important details, demonizing one side for the same crimes the other also committed and even justifying mass murder at times screams intellectual dishonesty and bias. This could have been an interesting history lesson, and a nice, informed, OBJECTIVE examination of the complex relationships and conflicts between the different peoples of that period, simultaneously breaking the illusion of far-right Catholics who believe Crusaders were justified in their murder of civilians, while also acknowledging the fact that the crusade itself WAS a retaliation, just a very misguided one. That would have been interesting and would have shown the viewers that pretty much nothing in history is black and white, but would have also required rationality and a cool head, of which you have none. Not to mention a shameful amount of insults as well as gigantic leaps of logic just to paint the person you are "debating" as a literal terrorist and wishing for their death, which shows me you are neither informed enough nor objective enough to make any type of "historical analysis" regarding this topic, or any topic for that matter. That type of behavior should stay on Twitter, where this video ultimately belongs.

[@GREEENMASTER]

Yes this dude think that race was invented

[@simoneidson21]

@@GREEENMASTERIt was. We made it up. Ethnicity is not race

[@ZIEMOWITIUS]

Don't quite get any of the arguments against the Crusades. There isn't much justification for them from a theological standpoint (the Pope telling people they can achieve salvation by retaking the Holy Land is un-Biblical), but from a geopolitical/strategic standpoint, the Crusades were entirely justified. The Saracens had been encroaching on Christian territory for hundreds of years by that point, and they were poised to enter the heart of the Byzantine Empire. The Crusades delayed the Saracen invasion of Europe by hundreds of years, why is it that Saracens are allowed to invade other regions and spread their religion by the sword, but Christianity and Christianity alone gets criticized for doing the same thing, but only in response to being attacked first.

[@user98344]

Not even from a geopolitical/strategic standpoint. The Levant was arguably the worst place to make a Crusade. Being in the middle of the Islamic world with not even a big Christian population, far from the kingdom that supposedly had to defend it and not much of economic importance. A Crusade in Egypt on the other hand would have been a far better choice. With a big Christian population and literally the bread basket of the Mediterranean could have made for a kingdom stronger so to different itself and more important for the European economies. As for the Saracens you mentioned, their base wasn't in the Holy land but north Africa, which again would have been a better choice for the Crusades. With its conquest the Christians would have solved the problem of the Saracens and they would control the second largest bread basket of the Mediterranean.

[@ZIEMOWITIUS]

@@user98344 The Levant was not the "center" of the Islamic world. The "center" would be somewhere in Arabia, where Islam originated. All things considered, it wasn't that long before the Crusades that the Saracens took the Holy Land to begin with. "Their base wasn't the Holy Land but North Africa" Now you're just contradicting yourself.

[@user98344]

@@ZIEMOWITIUS By center I mean geographically not culturally. As for the next sentence of your paragraph, it's not very well written so I cannot understand you. For my "contradiction" now, I thought that Saracens were how they named the Muslim pirates but now I saw that they were just called corsairs.

[@ZIEMOWITIUS]

@@user98344 The Holy Land was neither the cultural, nor the geographic center of Islam, Arabia was in both respects.

[@user98344]

@@ZIEMOWITIUS Just watch a map of Islam at this time period.

[@rabberumlard]

Why do they all sound like Whatifalthist? Is there a school somewhere that they take classes for that tone?

[@Thomasanderson81]

I like how you justified the Muslims having slaves by saying Judaism practiced it too like it has any relevancy it just goes to show Muslims practiced it longer than Europeans and still do lol

[@muslimwhostrying]

Problem?

[@Thomasanderson81]

@@muslimwhostrying yeah keep coping

[@sillyguy-rv6xl]

​@@Thomasanderson81 and your people try to justified the same thing by saying "iSlAm Do The SAmE ThiNG So is Ok"

[@Thomasanderson81]

@@sillyguy-rv6xl I’ve never heard anyone justify slavery because Muslims did it you just made that up but okay and I think it’s worse when Muslims owned slaves for 1400 years and some countries still practice it who are majority Muslim furthermore white Europeans had a very small slim part of slavery if you actually look at the history it only existed for about 400 years compared to Muslims doing it for way way longer I’ve never justified slavery bc Muslims did it and never heard that before

[@adamelghalmi9771]

@@Thomasanderson81 40 years isn't that long my man, that's the difference between the last muslim and christian state to abolish slavery. i believe the last was morocco, in 1913, and brazil and portugal were somewhere in the 1880's. nobody justifies slavery, it's a bygone practice now, ineffective and useless.

[@Cyynapse]

a history channel using memes and anime girls unironically is the biggest red flag on earth

[@Letitcrustandwipe]

Commit the 41 percent

[@YahnatanBenAhav]

Thank you for making this to provide correct information that is balanced on multiple sides of the topic. I was grieved and irritated that the Pax Tube video this was responding to didn’t even mention how the Crusaders randomly slaughtered Jews IN EUROPE (and burned them alive in Jerusalem when they peacefully surrendered) as part of their “holy war.” That information alone is enough for me to reject the assertion that the Crusades were awesome and had no failures.

[@Gofaw]

No one ever said they had no failures. Making shit up to support your terrible argument is not a good look

[@YahnatanBenAhav]

@@Gofaw sorry you’re angry and upset. I like Winnie the Pooh too. He’s the best. :) Maybe I missed something, but the PaxTube video came across as arguing that the Crusades were awesome and had no failures (in terms of what they accomplished in the ultimate sense). That’s why I said that. It would’ve been nice if PaxTube at least mentioned the slaughter of all the innocent Jews and gave some interpretation for that rather than not mentioning it at all. I personally believe God brings good out of everything that happens. So in that sense, of course the Crusades were somehow a success. But that doesn’t meant evil wasn’t involved, and Jesus did say we will know those who belong to Him by their fruit (Matt 7; John 8:44).

[@Gofaw]

@@YahnatanBenAhav saying im upset wont make you right mr synagogue of satan

[@YahnatanBenAhav]

@@Gofaw Jesus bless you.

[@0xsilky336]

I like how you said slavery was common between the muslims AND Jews. Doesn’t rly strengthen your point that the Christian’s didn’t have the moral high ground tho

[@vityakiton0181]

Do you think slaverly was not common amongst Christians? How about how the fact the bible states that if you wage war on far away states you must kill all the men and keep the women and children as plunder. Aswell as that an Israelite man sees a woman he wants he can take her as a sex slave and she if her husband was murdered she has 30 days to mourn. There are numerous occasions of Christian slavery and you could educate yourself instead of making an idiotic fatuous comment.

[@elyrienvalkyr8167]

Imagine saying Christians don't have a moral high ground when Muslims strap bombs to todlers and toss them in razor wire as a distraction. Or how they beat women into comas with iron rods for having boyfriends. Imagine simping for scum like that.

[@johndee2990]

@@vityakiton0181 You never read it. It Shows That's OLD TESTAMENT, we're in the NEW TESTAMENT. I'm not going to explain why the two relate, just that the old one helps you understand the one with Christ as a main Character. On the other hand you probably think the Bible says "The wEaK will inherit the Earth" - it's Meek, which is akin to saying "Those who know how to use a sword, yet choose not to, will inherit the earth" Our style is as Jesus says, Practice you're religion in the closet and buy a sword. The secular way of saying that is we choose to speak softly and carry a big stick.

[@vityakiton0181]

@@johndee2990 Many people still follow the old Testament. Judging by the fact that the creator of the video is a Catholic and their iconography seems to indicate they like to larp as some Middle ages Roman Catholic I'm assuming they also believe in the old testament. Ontop of that you are aware that the main form of Christianity that was believed at the time of the Crusades was Roman Cathloisism. The idea that only Muslims and Jews had and justified slavery is idiotic. The rest of your comment is completely irrevlevant to my point. I care little for your beliefs.

[@johndee2990]

@@vityakiton0181 Wrong Orthodoxy is just as old, the Ethiopian Bible is one of, if not the oldest translation of the Bible.. Regardless, Christians are to observe the teachings of Christ and not put themselves under the Yolk of God because that'd be rejecting the a pretty essential part to the mission of Christ. I guessed as much, but you want to make an informed argument then you have to understand the material somewhat.. You wouldn't enter a Deep Space Nine forum armed with only knowledge from the OG Star Trek.. or worse confusing Star Trek with Star Wars.. Why do the same with Religion?

[@mertroll1]

Can I get a source of that one 01:40 ? That topic sounds highly interesting and I would love to read more about that

[@wilhelmvonlaer5699]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas this guy is the central figure I believe

[@StylesEste]

@@wilhelmvonlaer5699 🤣 When someone asks you for a source. Don't go to wikipedia. ^No historian, ever, uses wikipedia. That website is notoriously bad at keeping anything factual.

[@wilhelmvonlaer5699]

@@StylesEste Well at least I provided anything instead of being petty in pedantery. Besides, 90% of academic literature is also garbage, on Wikipedia there's at least the possibility to go to the discussion page and call out the bs without 2 years of peer reviews, financial risks and a paywall of doom for potential readers.

[@StylesEste]

@@wilhelmvonlaer5699 the discussion page? Lawls.. Son, equally bad opinions on an equally bad topic is not good information. I fail students that try that. You see those little citations and sources way at the bottom of the wikipedia page, that they put in so you don't think they're complete sops? Open those up. Read through those if you're going to use wikipedia. ^Even the co-founder of wikipedia has lamented at how extremely biased to the far-left his creation has come. It's a political website, "run" by people with no experiences. To be an 'editor' on wikipedia, you just have to have an edit accepted by other people (who are equally untrained and uneducated.) It's run by layman, not experts; Or even those who had classes by experts. It's the equivalent of me trying to tell you mechanical engineering; when my major is history, psychology, and mental health. It's just not going to go well. I have 'some knowledge' of it, but it's not enough to qualify me to *control* the information that governs its topic. And that, is sadly what wikipedia is. ^And it's why I fail students who use it.

[@igorious7508]

@@StylesEstethere are many conquistador diaries and diaries from Spanish mainland clergy which prove what the OP said

[@POSTELVIS]

Excellent Video! if only Pax Tube's passion for learning about Gura's virginity was as high as his passion for historically accurate sources and evidence, he'd probably be in a better place.

[@PRODHOBER]

did you just justify slavery by saying 'ah well yeah everyone had a shit life anyway so we shouldnt really care' 10:01

[@pdes1112]

he didn't justify slavery, Paxtube tried to create a narrative that slavery was something only going on the islamic world and Fredda is trying to explain that it happened all over the world.

[@sonderistic7664]

Yes, because otherwise you're falling into a presentist fallacy. How could the crusades be justified by the standards of the time, if those who are justifying the crusades are doing exactly what the enemy is doing?

[@shatzinorris1417]

you could have just said "he has a blue checkmark on twitter" instead of a well-researched, properly-crafter, interesting video

[@dominykassimonis2180]

i bet Pax tube doesn't even realise he uses arabic numbers while calling the muslims some kind of tribal barbarians.

[@Popepaladin]

And you are using Latin alphabet so I guess checkmate atheists?

[@davidmason4244]

Numbers like 0 which are indian

[@potatortheomnipotentspud]

​@@PopepaladinSeethe harder "tradcath"

[@davidmason4244]

@@potatortheomnipotentspud cry heretic Muhammed spawn

[@Frank-ql3nx]

"Arabic numbers" are not really Arabic. They were Indian and were adopted by Arab traders who traded with Indian kingdoms.

[@stephenmel8630]

Starting with character attack immediately weakens your argument which you claim to be objective.

[@jamesnelson9919]

No it does not. It may be unsavory, but he never used his opinion on his character to justify his arguments. You should look up the definition of ad hominem.

[@stylesmarshall6990]

Twas a damn good character attack tho

[@alessandrozanzarella9203]

@@jamesnelson9919 Yes it does weaken his argument. If the other side was so clearly in the realm of objective fallacy you wouldn't even need to discredit their credibility in the first place, as their fallacy would be more than sufficient for a complete debunk. But no, this guy chose to begin his video by undermining the 'opponent' to make him look bad and already place him in a bad light at the eyes of his viewers so that he could further guarantee a pre-bias coming into the video. Lame.

[@sonderistic7664]

@@alessandrozanzarella9203 This doesn't make sense, the ad-hominem you're claiming wasn't used to fuel his argument, as he hadn't started his argument yet. When he does the debunking, he makes it academically rigourous. And let's be real, he is most likely right that PaxTube is an incel

[@alessandrozanzarella9203]

@@sonderistic7664 It makes perfect sense. You are right, it didn't fuel his arguments directly as of one by one but it did affect the overall gravitas of his points which had a crucial role in convincing tens of thousands of people that his view was the correct one, which it was only partially. Why? Well all he did was list a bunch of reasons why bad things were done during the crusades, which is true because at the end of the day, it's war that we're talking about. Not a posh teaparty at 4PM in west London. But all this missed the main points of paxtube: 1.The fact that the first crusades were a REACTION to the tens of attacks that Europe had suffered from the south. 2. The crusades united Europe like it never happened before and never would happen again until the EU became a thing almost a thousand years later. 3. The crusades were not this OTHERWORDLY CATASTROPHE like many in the antichristian sphere want to make of. And I agree paxtube is waaaaaaaaay too biased and this does downgrade his points a lot because many of them are not factual but just a rephrasing of the concept in his own light. But at the same time sometimes he does bring up interesting and correct arguments like the core argument of his video. And finally that ad hominem goes to show the viciousness and cowardness of the creator. Bear in mind: No academic debunking needs an ad hominem. Period.

[@baloocallout678]

I started to notice that these alt-rights have strange affinity for anime girls, greek statues, roman symbols, and crusader references.

[@normalperson-x7o]

National Fetish

[@HarbingerOfBattle]

Some do. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, yet I too enjoy the occasional anime and brushing up on history such as with Rome and the Crusades.

[@BronanTheDestroyer]

Talk about the Islamic slave trade in Europe as well as the desolation of the moors against Spain and Southern France

[@KitchenSinkSoup]

whataboutism

[@xiuhcoatl4830]

​​​@@KitchenSinkSoupit's not whataboutism if it Indeed happen, and happened BEFORE the crusades

[@KitchenSinkSoup]

@@xiuhcoatl4830 It's still a whataboutism. Yes, it happened but it is still "what about X" in an attempt to distract from Y

[@johndee2990]

@@KitchenSinkSoup Denying Correlation to refute the Causation.. Leftist Big Brain at work folks

[@bosertheropode5443]

​@@KitchenSinkSoupLmao you people will say "crusades bad, christians evil" but will completely ignore muslim invasions and aggressions that lasted for centuries before the pope even considered launching a crusade.

[@Real_MrDev]

Pax kinda made some valid arguments such as the "defence" of Christianity, that's it... but that dosn't erase the ton of bs done by said crusaders during this period, even if we have to see all of this from the point of view of the past. By the way Freda, I would like to know if you saw videos that criticize your videos, especially the one on mr. Z.

[@FreddaYT]

The Crusades were not defensive, this is a far-right myth based on outdated historiography kept alive by literal terrorists. Yes, one of the videos was arguing against a strawman trying to debunk arguments I never made, another one was made by a literal child and so I didn't address it.

[@Real_MrDev]

@@FreddaYT Alright, thank you mate ;)

[@something1600]

@@Real_MrDev it wasn't a defensive war: Eastern Rome called for help when Anatolia was conquered by the Seljuk Empire, instead of pushing out the Seljuk Empire the crusaders went after the Levant instead (showing that they just wanted an excuse to conquer Jerusalem).

[@Real_MrDev]

@@something1600 To that point I am knowledgeable, that's why i quoted the defence part. Crusades were always just a fancy excuse for war.

[@cv4809]

​@@something1600levant also used to be part of eastern roman empire

[@MrDarthtelos]

I’m very impressed with how your video immediately attacks your adversary personally before saying anything else. Truly I’m already convinced before I hear any evidence.

[@Jack-iu2gl]

This, these Marxist types are eternally trapped as spoiled kids who use elementary school logic to attack their opponents

[@thepakistanipotato]

Did you not watch the video? Or even read the bibliography?

[@bjcantrell1990]

It's what people like this do when they don't have any real argument to make, amplified by his own admission of not being an expert on the crusades to begin with. All he has is spite, and it shows.

[@thepakistanipotato]

@@bjcantrell1990 in other words, you didn’t watch the video Or read the bibliography Or even consider that someone might be upset or offended at paxtube’s heinously wrong and misleading narrative on the crusades

[@isaiahburns9926]

Personally attack him? In what ways was this a personal attack? He only attacked the content that Pax Tube creates, and that's fair game when you're criticizing the arguments of an adversary.