Why The Crusades Were Awesome, Actually | History Teacher Reacts | Pax Tube

[@MrTerry]

Was this an accurate telling of the Crusades?

[@MalikF15]

Not really. He’s making a lot of generalizations. He also lumps all Muslims in same group. Also wasn’t the Pope on the outs and had an Anti pope so he wanted to unite Christian people.

[@y0sarian]

I wonder if an unbiased telling is possible considering the sources

[@0816M3RC]

An atheist would probably do a better job at being unbiased than a Catholic or a Muslim.

[@Alexander-vo4gv]

no the video was ass

[@joshuawillingham6363]

​@@y0sarianThat's probably the right take honestly. All of our sources are going to be from the perspective of the involved parties. I have little doubt that pockets both sides did pretty horrible things to each other for centuries resulting in pissing off the more reasonable who got the news of atrocities. Getting a detailed accurate and unbiased accounting of the full situation is probably impossible, especially considering how much was destroyed in the process.

[@BryanW-bp3le]

I understand the point he’s trying to make. I had a history teacher in high school who tried to paint the crusades and nothing more than the Christian world wanting to slaughter the Muslim world. He’s also not wrong about it becoming very mainstream for Hollywood to paint it the same way. Anyone that studies history knows history is never really black and white. Not saying he didn’t get things wrong or have a bias but I do get the point he’s trying to make.

[@straighttalkwithkyle7947]

Exactly. The Crusades were actually a counteroffensive to muslim aggression.

[@ДжейкобКосточко]

@@straighttalkwithkyle7947that Ian true; by the time of the first crusade the Muslims had already held Al Quds for a long time

[@malmaarmals9689]

​@@ДжейкобКосточко Yes it was held for a couple of centuries by then but the straw that broke the camels back was the fact the muslim ruler of the area forbid non Muslim Pilgrims from coming. Which basically gave the gut feeling the christian world already had for a couple centuries a clear target: the holyland. the first couple crusades christians actually united behind the mission the orthodox requested the Catholics for aid and even the coptic rose up during the crusadering period.

[@ДжейкобКосточко]

@@malmaarmals9689 the isn’t true and we have records of the complete opposite; Muslims kept track of Christian, Jewish and Muslim pilgrims to Palestine. Jews were the smallest present of pilgrims, Christians being just slightly under Muslim pilgrims and Muslim pilgrims being first because many African Muslims travelled through Palestine to get to Mecca and Medina.

[@malmaarmals9689]

@ДжейкобКосточко what you say about the records is also true most Muslim rulers of the region allowed for pilgrimage of all the people of the book, the location attracted a lot of tourists. Which helped the economy and the overall tax revenue of it's rulers. But after the Seljuks took charge they barred Christians from Europe. Before that policy the local Christian communities were already affected by the war and turmoil the Seljuks conquest brought on top of jizya (the instability also affected Muslims and Jews but the crusaders didn't care for those) and the Pilgrims lacked safety on the road. The EU pilgrims already brought stories of the plight of the Christians there... That said most of the stories were fiercely embellised to down right fabrications like im the case of Peter the hermit.

[@tomtech1537]

There is probably an argument to make that someone who is an atheist and grew up in a country where christianity is the dominant religion could cause him to over-emphasise christianity's issues (familiarity breeds contempt).

[@CatholicScripture]

This was my thoughts as soon as he talked on that point.

[@emilianohermosilla8511]

thanks for pointing this out!

[@xx-knight-xx2119]

That is as it's most common for Atheist in USA to point out harms from Christianity more often then say Buddhism or Hinduism probably because they may not be as familiar with the issues that come with those beliefs specifically

[@DrDanQ92]

It's not that familiarity necessarily breeds contempt but that we can easier criticize what is familiar.

[@caleblarsen5490]

Familiarity breeds contempt. . . And children. . . Mark Twain

[@mattturner6017]

Apparently the solution to historically inaccurate slander is equally historically inaccurate revisionism. Religion is not the source of human evils: humans are. Religion just happened to be a convenient political lever at the time.

[@straighttalkwithkyle7947]

Some religions are much better at exploiting human evil to commit heinous acts. Such as Islam. I remember September 11th. You should too.

[@mattrountree.]

At the time? That time never ended.

[@Waynecotton97]

@@mattrountree. We've got a Matt off I'm betting on Matt

[@Rand0mPeon]

@@Waynecotton97 I don’t know, I think Matt might have the advantage so far.

[@Waynecotton97]

@@Rand0mPeon Matt>Matt lol

[@galesdelbando1185]

One particular stands out to me. Around 28:00-31:00, the original video talks about the achievements of the Crusades regarding unity, mobilisation, conquest and military victories, all of which could be used almost word for word to describe the Muslim conquests. Funny that one is treated as an unmitigated tragedy and the other the video considers "awsome".

[@MrTerry]

Good point

[@tylerainsworth4542]

They were good

[@luodeligesi7238]

And even the supposed unity during the crusades quickly disappeared, and Europe remained fragmented and in near constant war with itself until the formation of the modern EU

[@nodruj8681]

Do you hang about muslim history videos and call out their hypocrisies crying about colonisation but celebrating the times when they were doing the same thing? I have a weird feeling that you don't.. maybe look in a mirror some time.

[@malmaarmals9689]

​@@luodeligesi7238well Nato and the nuke supply are more to thank for peace in Europe, but sure the EU helped a bit.

[@philipcollins90]

My fellow Christian’s please you don’t have to defend everything they the church does the church is a human institution and humans are sinners and do really terrible stuff the question isn’t is everything the church does perfect because the answer is a resounding no the question is would Jesus have done it and the answer is a resounding no. Christianity is great a lot of good has been done in the name of it but although we try to be we aren’t perfect

[@Mauther]

The 4th Crusade didn't do nearly as much damage as the ethnic cleansing/ genocide of Anatolia after the battle of Manzikert. Depopulating Anatolia gutted the Byzantine Empire's ability to field native armies and forced them to rely too heavily on mercenaries and foreign troops. Alexei probably wouldn't even have called for the Western support of it wasn't for Manzikert.

[@intello8953]

“Ethnic cleansing/ genocide of Anatolia after the battle of Manzikert” what are you talking? Who did this “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide”?

[@Mauther]

@@intello8953 In the aftermath of Manzikert, the Seljuk Turks expanded onto the Anatolian plateau which was the heartland of the Byzantine Empire. As the primary source of loyal Byzantine soldiers, it turned out to be perfect land for nomadic horsemen and very similar to their Central Asian homeland. Under the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and starting with Suleiman ibn Qutulmish, began a process of de-urbanization/nomadization in which they destroyed many cities and large villages to create additional grazing lands for their herds. They killed or drove out most of the native Anatolians and replaced them with Turks primarily from Persia. Most surviving Anatolians were pushed to the coastal areas along the Black Sea and the Aegean primarily going to the fortress cities Trebizond, Tarsus, and Constantinople itself. This process is known as the Turkification of Anatolia. Satisfied?

[@intello8953]

@@Mauther “primary source of loyal Byzantine soldiers” so basically anything they say huh? But I’m still confused they drove hundred of thousands if not millions of “Anatolians” to the Black Sea or a literal genocide? Just because massacres happen doesn’t literal genocide happen in Anatolia. And btw I hope you realise there is no indigenous “Anatolians” right? Anatolia has literally been invaded and settled by so many different races, empires and civilisations that’s SUPER hard to know what is “indigenous Anatolians”. So when you say “Anatolians” got “ethnically cleansed” you mean Romans, Greeks some from the Balkans etc right?

[@Mauther]

@@intello8953 Loyal soldiers as opposed to mercenaries, usually Franks but often Arabs, Bulgars and even Turks all of whom they were at war with. And your right, when I called the people of Anatolia I wasn't referring to the Mittani or Hittites from the bronze age. By Late Antiquity, the population referred to as Anatolians were descendants of Lycians, Lydians, Carians, Pisidians who had been settled there for hundreds if not thousands of years. So when I refer to indigenous Anatolians I'm referring to the descendants of those people who settled that territory in the Bronze Age, spoke the Indo-European offshoot called Anatolian or Proto-Anatolian before being Hellenized by Alexander the Great, more than 1400 years before Manzikert. And traces of all of those cultures survived until the 12th century through the Macedonian, the Seleucid Empire, The Kingdom of Pergamum, the Parthians, Rome, and finally Byzantium before being erased by the Seljuk Turks. The population of Anatolia was estimated at between 8 and 10 million in the early 1100's; by 1200 it was 3 million. So yeah, I'm saying the native population of Anatolia who had lived there for more than 1000 years were "un-a-lived" by the homicide happy Seljuks, who were the red-neck sociopaths of the Turks, who were themselves the runt of the litter of murder hordes that were spawned on the Central Asian plains, The only thing the Seljuks brought to the table was helping to establish the long Turkish hobby of Genocide, a hobby they continued into the 20th century and that current leader Erdogan would love to practice on the Kurds.

[@intello8953]

@@Mauther erm it was done by the Young Turks not necessarily “Ottomans” so now you need to prove the ulama and the sultan knew about this genocide of Armenians

[@icygaming20]

This dude obviously has an extreme anti muslim bias. Glad you called out his inaccurate claims and cherry picking. This dude gives me Prager U vibes lmao

[@fastestfail2645]

The video was right lol terry really missed here

[@xander583]

@@fastestfail2645 If you have any sense of intellectual honesty you can clearly see his Catholic bias

[@stillbrian9448]

Extreme anti muslim bias? xD Ah you're one of those people

[@jeffslote9671]

We should have biases against the religion. It doesn’t get called out enough

[@samuelterry6354]

@@stillbrian9448 A non-racist type person?

[@purplegoop1247]

the guy is a few centuries late for making propaganda for the crusades

[@tetrasphere8165]

You sure? Please elaborate

[@murph1329]

Let me help you with history. Christianity pre-dates Islam by 600 years. The middle east were Christian lands even while Muhammad was alive. Heck they were Christian lands before Muhammad was born. After Muhammad's death you had the first Jihad against the Christian Byzantine Empire. These Jihads would happen for 400 years all the way to Constantinople before the Christians said enough is enough and had the very first crusade. Seriously it's a joke to sit here and excuse Jihad after Jihad thinking the Christian lands at the time would just sit back and take it over and over again. Give me a freaking break. Heck I don't even need to continue bring up how the Ottoman Empire went all the way into Southern Europe to prove my point. The Islam expanse post Muhammad death is just insane and a lot of it VERY recent history with the Ottoman Empire and some would say it's still going on today with a "soft jihad." Honestly I don't think we had enough Crusades. But most fools won't see the truth until one sect out populates the rest making them the majority. To the side that complains about Christian extremism. I hope you live to see the day of an Islamic majority in the US.

[@seanfenrir]

While I do agree that Pax's video is biased, I also think it is very necessary in that it sheds light on many things about the crusades that most people are very ignorant about. Since you are a history teacher, you know most of these things like the back of your hand, but the average person knows nothing about the Abbasids, Seljuks, Reconquista, or even the motivations about the crusades. Most people (including myself) learn about the crusades from underpaid teachers who usually say something along the lines of, "Christians attacked muslims and took their land". While rough around the edges, Pax's video helped bring this topic into wider discussion so that we can learn more about the nuance of the topic. I hope a similar video gets made about Vlad the impaler, because his story is more nuanced than what is often portrayed as well.

[@sonderistic7664]

let's be hoest, video does not help anything since many of the claims have innacurate sources and are also severely biased. What it instead does is leave people who are uninformed about the crusades with innacurate knowledge and misinformation to further contribute to a dangerous viewpoint. He's not presenting history, he's making a polemic on muslims to rationalise his worldview of a "moral crusade"

[@ale-xsantos1078]

He already started off wrong saying the goal was to spread the faith You could say that about Charlemagne's campaigns against the saxons or the campaigns against the lithuanians, but the crusades to the Middle East were to secure trade routes through the "Holy Land", conversion efforts were a second thought and had minimal success

[@perennem_equitem_57]

I'd argue third as the defense of pilgrims was also a very prominent cause. Ultimately I think the video would've been fine if it just started with the turks moving into the region. And most are willing to say the later crusades are imperialist in cause except perhaps the 7th crusade.

[@Osteichthyes]

The channels we've had recently are...just weird. Lots of really one sided takes that seem to be ignoring a lot of nuance. It's a lot of black-and-white videos with so many generalizations to push a very specific narrative. Feels like more people are using history for propaganda...which is probably the most historically accurate thing I can think of.

[@BerserkerLuke]

Yeah, I think he talked about this in the Fat Electician livestream, but the idea is to watch the more biased videos to call out if they are being dishonest or innacurate and provide context. I would say it's pretty needed given the insane takes in the comments between this video and the Hakim/Second Thought ones. The community really is in need of purging the people that are only here to push their own agenda and not actually learn about history.

[@kishinasura1504]

That has always been the case. Specially in former colonial powers, they desperately need to "clean" their crimes so that the new generations don't do anything to change the status quo.

[@Florian-yn3ur]

Redditors and paradox fans are now becoming historian youtubers

[@mag9604]

@@kishinasura1504 What in the philosophical bs are you saying hahaha clean their crimes?

[@kishinasura1504]

@@mag9604 teach their population that their empires were not bad at all.

[@kingstraga7214]

If we can admit that the crusades were bad can we also have to admit that the expansion of the early Muslim caliphates were just as bloody if not more so so many times do I hear that Christianity comes under attack because of the crusades but no one ever wants to talk about the early two caliphates of Islam being the first caliphate of Muhammad and then the second umayyad expansion

[@chivebutter8794]

That's only because they're lesser known. That's the only reason

[@Planet.Xplor3r]

I don't remember Muslims making the rivers of Jerusalem flow like rivers of blood from how many they killed. Also have you heard of Indonesia? Islam doesn't spread by conquest

[@intello8953]

Erm you need to proof that the early Islamic expansion was “if not more” bloody mate

[@dankuya]

@@Planet.Xplor3r spreading by conquest is a feature of the religion you have clearly never read the Quran

[@kingstraga7214]

@@Planet.Xplor3r Islam doesn't spread by conquest have you read the Quran

[@theluckyone6465]

you should react to Why Austria-Hungary was RIGHT to Invade Serbia by Lavader its really good and i think you would like it

[@tetrasphere8165]

"Well you're wrong right away" says the one whos wrong right away

[@phillataxeudo2563]

There are no good side of islam conquest and Christian conquest, both of them done one of the most evil things to humanity but also most valuable one , there is always two sides of coin. So i generally disagree with video,but also i am disagree with you also in many points like like when you say the Islamic world is pretty peaceful, trade and pilgrims going on before the seljuks arrived this is the just one side of coin you are pretty much ignorant about other side , i can give countless example from both side this is why history is grey

[@trollscream8607]

Generally speaking it is more peaceful. I mean we can especially base it off the death count caused by religions. Islam stands in 6th place while Christianity takes first and atheism takes second. Out of the most major religions in history Islam is nearly the least violent.

[@yeetman4953]

​@@trollscream8607atheism isnt a religion, its a position

[@trollscream8607]

@@yeetman4953 True, although that’s my bad. I don’t remember if it was states that enforced atheism or just irreligious groups throughout history. Nonetheless it was in second place for the folks with no belief in God

[@Lynximus]

The golden age of Islam tolerated other religions existing within their empire and were world leaders in science, medicine and maths. Christians and Christendom were complete and utter for most of their existence. Christendom + crusades --> shift towards colonisation and the genocide of indigenous people everywhere in the world --> support of modern wars and genocide such as the one Palestine. Like holy crap bro, christianity has been horrendous. (I say this as a loose christian btw)

[@yeetman4953]

@@trollscream8607 mostly communist states like ussr and china back then, btw even they like to say that they are communist they never reached it.

[@Nipplator99999999999]

Is it just me, or does this guy seem to think that Christianity and Muslims are two countries that are fighting a war to conquer each other?

[@ballsmasher3000]

Irl European powers were fighting ayubids and mamluks (who were even fighting each other)

[@caffynated8046]

They're two civilizations in conflict with each other. There are many countries within each civilization.

[@timhare9867]

This guy (not you Mr Terry) is painful to listen to. Just a point in piracy in the Mediterranean. Peaceful Roman control of the Mediterranean ended in the 450’s when the Vandals, (Christians themselves at the time) seized Carthage and turned its entire fleet loose on the Mediterranean, sacking Rome in 455 AD. This coupled with the Gothic War, famine and plague reducing Italian population by about 1/3 in the 6th century is what led to European commerce steeply declining over the Dark Ages. The Muslim conquests probably didn’t help, but they were far from the first catastrophe to bring an end to antiquity and usher in the medieval era.

[@hokumdog]

Boo hoo Muslims conquered two thirds of the Christian world

[@davidweiss5000]

I think you are way too nice to him. This was just Catholic propaganda. Just a few things: There was another pope in Rome with Clement III, when the first crusade was called. There was the whole thing with the investiture controversy that played a gigantic role within Europe at the time. The crusade was called when the western emperor was effectively imprisoned in Italy. Before the real army started to go to the Middle East some peasant crowds formed. They massacred all the Jews in the cities of the Rhineland and a lot of Christians on their way, before they themselves were slaughtered. The crusades nearly bankrupted all the big European powers. Including the pope. Frederick II was insulted and had vegetables thrown at him and he was again excommunicated by the pope for the deal he made with the Muslims. The crusader orders became so powerful and problematic for the Europeans that the kings send them to conquer their own states (Teutonic order) or rounded them up and killed them (Templars). This was some bullshit.

[@jbstarkiller4626]

Cope🤣

[@davidweiss5000]

​@@jbstarkiller4626 Thank you for proving my point that it was catholic propaganda.

[@elohel3293]

@@davidweiss5000 it it wasn’t.

[@stevemarshall4822]

From Europe's perspective the Crusades were a great idea: lots of troublesome knights who would otherwise be causing chaos in Europe were instead inspired to go off and cause chaos somewhere else. Not on our doorstep. Cynical I know, but there it is.

[@ozyrysozi6186]

It was a great opportunity for the Pope to gain more influence over Europe and also calm dowm conflicts between european powers. And there is also an opportunity to maybe end the schism or just maybe lesser the blow made by it.

[@jacket8818]

It also solved the problem of lords not owning lands, they can own new lands now

[@noneofyourbusiness3288]

@@jacket8818 Yeah. In a way it was a foreshadowing of colonialism (which always existed in some form or another): when the resources (land) in your part of the world becomes scarce, you look to make some other part of the world "your" part of the world. Same concept over and over. Greed feeding wars.

[@linming5610]

Imagine Norman knights wrecking havoc inside Europe. You guys need to thank the crusades. They did the powerlifting and basically won the 1st crusades and with the struggle in taking byzantine lands and fighting the holy roman empire, they exhausted themselves as a result. Denying your other sons inheritance really does wonders lol.

[@sassybooper1]

@MrTerry I think you'll like fredda's video rebutting paxtube's video. He gets really in depth in dissecting each argument paxtube presents.

[@colinedmunds2238]

As a non religious person, I'm always amused by Christians who talk about jihad being a bad thing while defending the crusades

[@xander583]

As a Muslim it's what I'd expect since Christians love to frame it as defensive warfare

[@prestigev6131]

A rose by any other name. There’s little difference between a crusade and jihad. They’re conquests in the name of religion

[@luodeligesi7238]

As a religious Catholic, I'm amused by anyone defending the crusades, period

[@maxtex60n40]

And not just for the holy land but also against the people who followed paganism and none-Christians in Europe.

[@jeffslote9671]

When was the last crusade? Liberation of people from Islamic oppression is always justified

[@xHASSUNAx]

Just a quick correction: Muslims see Jesus as the Messiah, just not as a son of god Wonderful react video, that kid Pax whatever is an absolute snot. You can tell he cherry picks and twists information to suit his narratives

[@johnirby8847]

What does Messiah mean!?

[@islammehmeov2334]

​@@johnirby8847Chosen by GOD in ISLAM

[@tonydigital808]

Quick question if anyone can answer. What’s the difference in a prophet and a Messiah? And how would they both correlate historically to Jesus and Mohamed?

[@johnirby8847]

@@tonydigital808 Messiah is unique to Jesus/Isa. Messiah doesn't mean "chosen by God." Not even in Arabic.

[@tonydigital808]

@@johnirby8847 I see. Thank you!

[@bitcores]

34:50 Sounds like he is basically saying that without the Crusades, Islam would have spread to cover all of Europe, and because Europe is still majority Christian the Crusades were successful (and good).

[@Planet.Xplor3r]

I'm a Muslim and I can tell you that's a failure, Islam doesn't spread through conquest but through the pen. It's telling from how Europe is becoming more Muslim every year and how it's the fastest growing religion

[@intello8953]

That’s not true though other then the Seljuk Turks which other Muslim soldiers were expanding into Europe?

[@Pancasilaist8752]

​@@intello8953seljuk is enough. Remember battle of varna? Sometimes all you need is large army under single flag rather multiple army under different flag.

[@intello8953]

@@Pancasilaist8752 true the Seljuks were a formidable army and took almost all of Anatolia and many former Abassid territories. And was the biggest Turkic force prior to the Mongols and the Ottomans.

[@randomuruk7230]

​@@intello8953The moors?

[@lilhalal9903]

I’m a fan of your channel but you didn’t address any of the points he made. Every response was a straw man. Like when he talked about the biggest loss being Jerusalem, then you said the biggest loss was Constantinople or Rome. Yes they WOULD have been bigger losses but he was talking about losses that actually happened in this time. Or when you mentioned there being non Christian’s too. Of course there were non Christians too but as he said it is majority Christian. There was not one time when you rebutted a claim he actually made

[@shadowpriest2574]

Yep, its wierd.

[@linkspeaks]

The bias is strong in this telling of the crusades. I mean, I was raised Catholic too but none of my teachers tended to say anything positive about that time in history

[@luodeligesi7238]

I must have grown up in the liberal side of Catholicism because I've never met anyone who had anything positive to say about the crusades

[@mr.redpanda-]

The more I learn of history, the more I realize that every conflict in history isn’t one sided. Every side is evil, due to the fact that people are killing each other.

[@lloydgush]

But maybe they should?

[@lloydgush]

​@@luodeligesi7238neither did I, still... Why?

[@luodeligesi7238]

@@lloydgush why what?

[@D4rkmatter]

My honest stance on the Crusades is that they were justified actions, but by no means they were awesome. They were brutal wars and pathetic failures for the Catholic Church. I don't understand why people romanticize them.

[@chomskysfavefive]

This is the most reasonable way of looking at it, in my opinion. There were many towns and cities along their path that viewed the Christians as liberators, and not without good cause. Women and children murdered. Plenty of Christians were slaughtered because they couldn't tell them apart from the Muslims. That is an absolute moral failure, especially if you believe that the initial call to arms was justifiable as I do.

[@chrisengel2489]

I think the one point that is reasonable is that Islam, under different leaders and groups had expanded through constant territorial conquest into lands that had previously been controlled by other peoples and from a European perspective the conflicts between 700-1700 could largely be viewed as DEFENSIVE in nature. Obviously there were very many different motivations for people who participated in the different Crusades but you could make a decent argument that they were an attempt to retake lands that had been taken by force from Christian rulers and were in that sense justified..... rather than as sometimes portrayed acts of naked aggression against "peaceful Muslims". I mean if you are taking lands from someone who had themselves gained those lands by conquest, is it justified or unjustified?

[@Planet.Xplor3r]

Muslims didn't conquer Christian nations, nearly all expansion was into Roman territories where they saved thousands of years worth of knowledge, but of course that's a bad thing since it's the browns right?

[@michael-gb3rn]

@@Planet.Xplor3r at that point in time the roman were Christians. Christianity was legalized in 306AD and by the time of the Muslim expanse in 622AD most people in the roman empire east and west was Christian so yes there did expand into Christian land.

[@chrisengel2489]

@@Planet.Xplor3r The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) was entirely Christian by the time of the Arab expansion. The Western Roman Empire had already fallen by that time and been replaced by successor states, all of which were Christian. Yes, the Islamic armies looted lots of Roman artifacts, along with murdering, enslaving and subjugating vast numbers of people who occupied those lands. If you want to consider preservation or spread of knowledge as justification for territorial conquest, murder, slavery and subjugation then I assume you have absolutely no problem with Western "colonialism" that your side so often bleats about since it did that as well. My point still stands, the Islamic armies were fighting an offensive war to conquer new territory. The people they were fighting against were fighting a defensive one to protect themselves against Islamic conquest. In the West, these were almost entirely Christian by this point. In the East... yes the Muslims also engaged in territorial expansion Eastward.... the people defending themselves against Islamic aggression held a variety of beliefs, including Hindu's.

[@marvelfannumber1]

@@michael-gb3rn Not to mention they also invaded the Berbers in the Maghreb and Visigothic Kingdom of Spain, which were also Christian and not part of the Roman Empire, and made inroads towards the Franks, which were not part of the Roman Empire.

[@michael-gb3rn]

@@marvelfannumber1 that is true, there are so many country or just people in general if I had to list them all it would be a entire book and not like I remember everybody anyway lol. I'm not downplaying some of the thing the crusader did was waaay out i think we all agree.

[@idocohen853]

i don't see why the crusades should be considered really evil by the standards of the Middle Ages, but it doesn't make them make sense. This guy is not just a Catholic, he made a video about the French revolution - and while I think that revolution was very problematic, he started to condemn the enlightment and "negative freedom" (freedom to do non Christian things) and praised the French monarchy "for stoping" Protestantism there. I don't want him on my algorith so I didn't watch it, but he also has a video praising the Inquisition directly.

[@jbstarkiller4626]

I’m sure he terrifies you🤣

[@idocohen853]

@jbstarkiller4626 Nah, it's pretty laughable. A bit disgusting though.

[@chivebutter8794]

Supporting pretty much any inquisition is crazy​@@jbstarkiller4626

[@jacket8818]

@@jbstarkiller4626 Of course someone who praise the worse recorded torture in human history terrifies me

[@jbstarkiller4626]

@@jacket8818 That’s good, you should be scared👍🏻

[@Jürgen_von_Schumacher]

I generally do have a more positive outlook on the crusades, specifically of the kingdom of Jerusalem from its foundation to its collapse prior to the Third Crusade and I disagree with your statement of Europe fighting themselves during the dark ages. During the 900s, the kingdom of East Francia was in total war with Slavic pagans as well as Magyar horselords. The French and English were facing constant invasion from Vikings. The Spanish were locked in a 700 year long war with the Muslims. While it is true they did fight themselves, there was a much greater focus on the Christian realm fighting against the hordes of hell, if you will. In fightibg became mych more common after the conversions and the focus became more political rather than religious. The Crusades just returned the focus to a religious standpoint. Regardless, the Crusades will always be somewhat admirable in my mind despite the many horrors and atrocities done during them on both sides I feel like both you and Pax are operating on different stances. Pax is painting the crusades in a FAR more positive light than what they were while overlooking the Jewish massacres done in the HRE, the general destruction of the First Crusade, and many more topics like that. You are making the same mistake by focusing on the faults of the crusades and their many atrocities instead of looking at how they essentially set the pavement for what would become the world we live in today. I think looking at the Crusades told by the Crusaders and the Muslims themselves is the best way to learn their story rather than cherry picking the causes and effects. And there's a massive anti Catholic and anti Crusade sentiment in the world which is only further reflected by the comment section here. Ultimately it's all very biased so I'll keep my own opinions coming from Real Crusades History

[@chivebutter8794]

It is really hard to watch these videos. Not because of you Terry. But the OCs are difficult to tolerate, and very biased

[@BerserkerLuke]

Yeah, but I do think there's value in it. By covering these kind if videos, he can point out the biases and offer corrections, which I think makes them more important than the average reaction. Still though, it can be pretty exhausting.

[@Deinz1024]

What does "OC" mean in this case?

[@chivebutter8794]

@Deinz1024 original creators (meaning those terry is reacting to)

[@Deinz1024]

@@chivebutter8794 Makes sense, thanks

[@tekdaystar345]

Pax is a man who once threw a temper tantrum that his favorite child presenting virtual youtuber may have once dated a black man. he is deeply unserious

[@ch33les99]

Wait seriously???

[@tekdaystar345]

@@ch33les99 yeah, he once got pissy on Twitter over a rumor about Gawr Gura maybe possibly having dated a black man IRL

[@chrisvibz4753]

Thats not true

[@samuelterry6354]

@@chrisvibz4753 Cope.

[@hokumdog]

Race mixing is disgusting

[@PowerLord83]

I keep hearing in this video, "yeah but this is normal for those times" so then why single out the Crusade?

[@Pancasilaist8752]

And the funny thing is, he think arabs and mongols are bad for doing the same thing.

[@lucasvasconcellos3040]

Hey there Mr. Terry. One correction: on 12:30 you said that 'Christians conquered it before... they conquered that area' when replying to the mention of the Islamic expansion towards previously roman (eastern or otherwise) territories. However, a more nuanced comment would point out that Christians, up until then, did NOT conquer territories. While some minor expansions did happen with several early medieval kingdoms, they were not religiously motivated (yet... we're talking up to 600 ad) and were nowhere close to the scale of the Muslim conquests. We should notice that the Roman Empire reached it's peak in 117 ad with Trajan. That's more than 2 centuries before the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the empire. So Romans conquered it, yes, but they were not Christians yet when the conquests took place.

[@LauchlinM.]

Thank you for actually pointing out a _number_ of this gentleman's inaccuracies, and sleight of hand. I myself am also Roman Catholic, but have also seen long ago how detrimental the crusades were to both the Christians _and_ the Muslims especially for short term gains.

[@roseandsword.]

The crusades are overly demonized by secular sources. Still, they weren't all that great either, especially the 4 one. Pax kind of ignores those nuances.

[@Asturian-vm3sk]

Definitely justified, they had been conquering and enslaving Christians for decades before the 1st Crusade was finally declared.

[@majorianus8055]

No. Mr Terry is unfortunately mostly wrong here. The video is right

[@perennem_equitem_57]

​@@majorianus8055 no, pax's video lacks nuance. Yes religiosity was one of the driving factory behind the crusades but imperialism and trade were other factors. As I usually say, the crusades are justified as a cause, but horrible in execution.

[@GamerAccounts-s7s]

This guy was recommended to me one day with that video, I thought with a title like it was gonna be satire so didn't watch it, knowing what it actually is I'm not really sure if watching the original before the reaction would've made it better to me.

[@EsaLena1]

"One crusade I particularly like" is a very strange phrase.

[@carterghill]

... except when followed by "because it was peaceful and achieved its goals." Seriously you guys are being really weird about this one, the comment section feels really off to me this video.

[@blitzkrieg7353]

@@carterghill you mean there are a lot of Js on this comment section?

[@Jürgen_von_Schumacher]

Eh, not really. A crusade I like in particular were the First and the Third. You're not liking them because they're bloody but because of the history behind it and its influence

[@Jürgen_von_Schumacher]

​@@carterghillthey're anti Catholics and anti crusades. Yes, the crusades were very much misrepresented by Pax who painted them in a much more positive light but Terry is operating on the opposite extreme with his stances on Islam and advocating more for the crusades simply being wrong. Both sides are missing the nuance. If you want to find history told by the crusaders themselves, I'd recommend you watch Real Crusades History

[@n8nate]

Nice one Mr Terry for giving us an informative and 'sane' idea of what actually happened. Love the channel 👍🏽👍🏽

[@michealpadraigpriomhuaduin7812]

A lot of the history of the West was preserved by Ireland. Read "How the Irish Saved Civilization. They shouldn't be left out of the preservation.

[@intello8953]

If you watch Dr Roy Casagranda he debunks that book

[@michealpadraigpriomhuaduin7812]

There are other books on the topic.​@@intello8953

[@yeetman4953]

​@@intello8953sources needed

[@marvelfannumber1]

Good to see someone doing a video-debunk of this, because that original video is such a mess. However I would point out that you seem to do some overcorrecting mistakes here too. For one you seem to imply that Christians weren't a majority in the Levant/Egypt before the Arab Conquest or that it was a "very diverse place", but that's not really true, by 600, most of this area would be Christian. Different *kinds* of Christians sure, but mostly Christians (and Jews), not very many pagans left by that point. In Jerusalem especially, there would have only been Christians, because Jews were forbidden by the Romans from entering the city, even after the empire became Christian. This is actually a really good point against that original video, because the early Muslims were actually the ones who allowed the Jews to enter Jerusalem again after 500 years of forced exile. Also the idea that the Islamic Golden Age took place because the "Muslims cared about ancient texts and Europeans didn't yet" is a pretty bad generalization. The Roman Empire still existed, and they still cared for old works, in fact where do you think the Abbasids got these texts from? A lot of them were diplomatic gifts from Constantinople.

[@XxSeedOfEvilxX]

As someone who's studied the Crusades because of how it links to orientalism and bigotry towards the Middle East today, saying the Crusades were awesome is just absolutely insane. The Crusaders even failed in their goal to maintain long-term Christian control over the Holy Land and destroyed countless lives in that pursuit, many of whom weren't even Muslim. Pax Tube is a Catholic/Christian apologist and his whole channel is riddled with this kind of apologia. His channel and way of speaking reminds me of quacks like WhaIifalthist who disregard established history intentionally.

[@rafaelexel93]

The crusades failed in general, but they managed to liberate iberea so that's something. But they where in principle all about liberating ancient Christian lands from muslims oppression the means where bad as war is always a ugly affair, the results where unfortunately not the best as the muslims still control the Levant wich is the Christian birthplace, you could argue that the Christian expansion in the Americas as done by the Portuguese and Spanish beacuse they veiwed as a holy conquest.

[@chrisvibz4753]

lol mr terry arabs had slaves until 1960s

[@JoeeyTheeKangaroo]

They still do.

[@JoeeyTheeKangaroo]

Southern Nigerian ended slavery nearly 100 years than northern because southern was British & Christian. Guess what the north was.

[@chrisvibz4753]

@ No bc look it up. look up “when did saudi arabia abolish slavery”

[@chrisvibz4753]

@@JoeeyTheeKangaroo sorry i thought u said the opposite my bad. i thought u were saying the arabs DIDNT have slaves that recent and that THEY ended it aay before us🤣 sorry brother

[@JoeeyTheeKangaroo]

​@@chrisvibz4753the Islamic ideology is complete cancer

[@xander583]

The Irony is that Arab/Levantine Christians where mistreated by the Crusaders.

[@pyrobeingpyro]

Could you attach some links related to the mistreatment? I'm interessed

[@yousseftrab3615]

@@pyrobeingpyro ask cahtgpt i just asked him and he unswered really well

[@Noodlepunk]

​@yousseftrab3615 There was Christians Arabs fighting along side Polish soldiers for the fight for Vienna.

[@yousseftrab3615]

@@Noodlepunk ok give me the source and vienna is in europe

[@zegerman360]

​@@Noodlepunkthere were also Muslim aliens fighting in the siege of Vienna

[@phantomarceus6387]

I like how he ignores the infighting and rivalry between HRE Frederick II and Pope Gregory XI during and after the 6th crusade, Frederick's negotiation of Jerusalem was a decision that many of the crusaders disagreed with, especially Gregory because he excommunicated Frederick for a second time.

[@ElizabethMcCormick-s2n]

Tell that to all the innocent Jews and Muslim civilians that were murdered by the Crusaders!

[@TheNeonParadox]

The original video lost me after the Ridley Scott comment. Let's be real about this. Just because someone doesn't believe in a god, that means they're hostile toward religious people? Absolutely not. Also, as Mr. Terry said, we're talking about two heavily religious armies and kingdoms here. Someone hostile toward religious people would equate both ends as hostile, blood thirsty barbarians, which would have been more accurate. Though, one side was a lot more fond of bathing than the other. 😂

[@rangerwilltreaty9729]

he seems to think that atheism=anti christian

[@Noodlepunk]

Well atheist sure don't say Islam is bad and I am an atheist. I dislike Islam cause it's degrading to women.

[@Swedishpolymath]

Ridley Scott was a good director? Has he died or do you mean he is just shit now?

[@BradanKlauer-mn4mp]

He’s alive and well. He’s a shit director now.

[@sharkchaos5160]

Probably that he is shit now. Because he made that really bad Napoleon movie.

[@Swedishpolymath]

@@sharkchaos5160 Yeah. Then again I haven't seen it and I would not trust mainstream movie critics. I suppose it depends on what kind of movies you like.

[@sharkchaos5160]

​​@@Swedishpolymath The movie was really bad and what he said after it was also really bad. I watched two history KZbinrs talking about it. One is Metatron and the other is history of everything podcast.

[@IRFSI]

Dude I was same as you. Watched the movie only to skip parts in the middle to end. It was that bad. Visually it was 10/10 but other stuff effin 2/10 ​@@Swedishpolymath

[@majorianus8055]

24:25 No, Western Europe is not ignorant at this time. In fact some of the Crusaders have travelled to the Holyland before like Robert. Western Europeans are not stupid even in the 1100s. They have vibrant culture and growing economies.

[@darthrevan6886]

As far as I have heard, Pax Tube is also apparently a Francoist, which also might also explain a few things.

[@Pancasilaist8752]

Which is funny because franco surrounded himself with muslim moroccan bodyguard.

[@whilryke]

If we want to make the list we can also add racist (his infamous reaction to the idea that his favorite vtuber may have had relations with black men, and his video response to an Atun shei video where he says US demographic changes reducing the proportion of whites to the benefit of non-whites is inherently a bad thing), Lost Causer (same video on Atun shei, he defends the confederacy with the same arguments debunked in Checkmate Lincolnites), apologist for tyranny (his video on the French Revolution is anti-elightenment and pro-absolute monarchy), anti-protestant (same French Revolution video where he praises France's war against Protestants), and probably a few other bad words.

[@D4rkmatter]

​@@whilryke Really ironic how PaxTard hate Protestantism when: - Supports the CSA (Mostly Protestant) - Supports German Empire (Protestant Monarchy and some Anti-Catholicism) - Supports Donald Trump (Protestant as well) Man, I don't understand why Protestantism became so hated these days, but I'm sure PaxTard has some fault of it.

[@perennem_equitem_57]

​@@D4rkmatter because of the "rampant" heresy in the church's. It occurs in some but usually thats not a church, it's a political rally with religion taking a back seat.

[@michaelstark8720]

Why don't you watch Bill Warner PhD and his video Jihad vs Crusade. And yes goal of Crusade isn't Jerusalem although that was point of first few, but defense of Christendom. You talk about Inquisition but people there needed to know what people there are doing to prevent future invasions or false teachings. After 700 years war to retake Iberia, they did right thing

[@stillbrian9448]

They were cool as heck, Deus Vult!

[@roseandsword.]

Not the fourth one. They literally sacked Constantinople, the capital of the Christian Byzantine empire.

[@antiepix9555]

And the massacres of all the civilians in the Rhineland, the Levant, and other places along the way 💀

[@MrSquigglies]

I will say I probably wouldn't call the crusades awesome by any stretch and neither are any of the jihads especially those currently going on. But the more I learn about the crusades, the less crazy bloodthirsty and mindless Christianity seems and the more understandable and human The conflicts are.

[@ramennnoodle]

That's only natural, because all these conflicts are still fought by humans after all

[@intello8953]

So killing other “heretic” innocent Christians and Jews are not “less crazy bloodthirsty” 😂. Unless you can give me when Muslims killing so many innocent people in Jerusalem created “rivers of blood”

[@cyberanon2463]

One correction to mr terry as a muslim, we do see Jesus as a messiah but we don't necessarily define the word messiah like Christians. Christians believe the messiah is God while we don't, but we believe he will defeat the antichrist(which we call dajjal) in the second coming.

[@Leivve]

Your end times prophecy is Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad team up with the arch angle to fight dajjal right?

[@cyberanon2463]

@Leivve no, imam mahdi will come first and spread peace in the world then the messiah who is Jesus will come next to defeat the dajjal. Moses and Muhammad won't come.

[@johnirby8847]

What does Messiah mean?!

[@cyberanon2463]

@johnirby8847 that he was chosen by God to come again

[@islammehmeov2334]

​@@johnirby8847chosen by GOD

[@lljkgktudjlrsmygilug]

HIs Twitter is hilarious by virtue of how comically stupid and bigoted, I say as if the two aren't linked, he is. There are so many instances of him talking about "Judeo Liberalism", among other nonsense, that actual SS officers have a better defence for the "Just following orders" line because there might be ambiguity that they wouldn't do what they were doing if they weren't compelled to. HIM THOUGH?!

[@redfox-rl8ig]

This is a snotty deus vult kid trying to change history.

[@perennem_equitem_57]

I mean nothing wrong with the phrase deus vult, but pax's video lacks alot of nuance which takes you from a hot take (the crusades weren't completely bad) to an absolutely bat-shit crazy take (and they were successful.)

[@redfox-rl8ig]

@@perennem_equitem_57 im from Brazil and what i mean by a "deus vult kid" is someone who is ultra conservative and "nacionalist" (praises europe more than his own country and is mad he isn't european bc someone planted worms in his brains that only the "europen race" is good and all of the other ones are bad). Normally also supports the now (thank god) dead Brazilian Monarchy (aka Portuguese monarchy that was born in Brazil during colonial years) So a deus vult kid has a different meaning here atleast than what u would normally think of which is just someone who likes the crusades or what not.

[@kishinasura1504]

Wow, this Pax tube guy made a strawman of a strawman. Fascinating. Modern consevartism is fighting it's own fictional enemies nowadays.

[@Luke-n4k]

this guy is not a conservative, he is a neo nazi

[@bramobin]

He's made another video on the french revolution which I found to also be really bad, I'd be interested if you ever did a reaction to that too! Thx for the cool reactions as always!

[@Waynecotton97]

Bro is lost in the "holy" sauce

[@nearly_epic]

The video had maaaasive Islamophobia. Dude was really biased against muslims

[@Planet.Xplor3r]

Sadly there's a lot of islamophobic here in this comment section too that support the nutjob in the original video Mr terry reacted to

[@thatshowyoudoit6583]

Womp womp

[@ДжейкобКосточко]

@@thatshowyoudoit6583what?

[@JLS639]

So, a point about 11 minutes in that you said Muslims didn't see Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus is the Messiah in Islam. However, in Islam the Messiah is not as important as it is in Christianity (I mean, the name "Christianity" tells you what is most central to the religion, the Messiah, the Christ).

[@renuoz]

Long time viewer and not a catholic.. just coming across quite defensive on this one for some reason? The OC is obviously quite biased, but he's right the modern west has been turning the Crusades on it's head way beyond the reality of it and making it come across like some sort of hyper-colonialism when it's absolutely not the case. The justification slant is pretty interesting as well, kinda wished or something more than just a lot of saying no on this one..

[@Pancasilaist8752]

Colonialism was as old as alexander the great. That's how you got some greek kingdom in afghanistan. But in this case, not sure it was colonialism. But despite overtly demonisation, it doesn't mean the crusade was great either.

[@090giver090]

@@Pancasilaist8752 Colonialism is as old as humans leaving Africa (this is why most Europeans have genetical traces of Homo Neanderthalensis while not being their direct descendants)

[@jacket8818]

@@Pancasilaist8752 The colonialism that existed durning Alexander time and the colonialism that existed after the age of exploration are so different they have their own definition

[@Pancasilaist8752]

@@jacket8818 how different?

[@jacket8818]

@@Pancasilaist8752 When Alexander conquest happened, many of Persian artefacts and their record stayed, and the Persian them self stayed majority and were able to rebuild The same can’t be said about what happened in North America and Australia where the native become minority and African were shipped in millions over the Atlantic where half of them didn’t make it over because more often they were left to die of thirst and hunger

[@1wayroad935]

The sheer loss of life alone makes the crusades not worth it

[@johnirby8847]

The video is right! Islamic expansion directly lead to conflict. It was inevitable. And it's pretty remarkable that most of the nations of Europe came together.

[@ozyrysozi6186]

I mean further expansion into Europe was stopped when Francs deafeted the Umayyad Caliphate expansion from Iberia into France (Gaul). But it was still dangerous for Easter Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) as they lost more and more in Anatolia. That's why partialy First Crusade happened - Emperor of Byzantium called Pope Urban II for help in retaking anatolian land from Muslim countries (I believe it was mostly Seljuk Turks but I might be wrong). But I agree that such a conflict was inevitable as Europe was in conflict with itself, so Pope used the call for help as something that could unite powers and fight against Islam. There was also a problem of Southern Italy where Islam and Catholic faiths clashed.

[@noneofyourbusiness3288]

This video honestly deserves more of a "debunking" than a "reaction". The bias was so strong it, it could power a small town simply with the force generated from the mental gymnastics displayed.

[@perennem_equitem_57]

I'm catholic and even I was picking up on it. This topic deserves far more nuance than what pax is giving it. Were the crusades religiously inspired, depends on who you talk about. The military orders (templars, teutons, hospitallers, etc.) were probably very driven by religiosity. The kings and nobles however had many different goals one of which would've been religiosity but also trade, power, influence, and many other reasons.

[@jayayywhy4374]

this guy sure left out a lot of things like the start of the first crusade where one of the crusader groups massacred a bunch of Jews in Germany, or the slaughter of people of all religions when they took Jerusalem, or that Europeans also practiced piracy before the Muslims showed up

[@jacket8818]

Or how orthodox Christians were banned from entering Jerusalem

[@Pancasilaist8752]

Don't bother to listen to the person above me. His other comment supported CSA.

[@jayayywhy4374]

@@Pancasilaist8752 ?

[@Pancasilaist8752]

@@jayayywhy4374 im not talking about you.

[@jayayywhy4374]

@@Pancasilaist8752 oh was there a secret 3rd guy

[@shadowaccount8620]

When he said how Ridley Scott was an Atheist and that's why the film was made in that way, I knew im going to get dumber and need Terry to not make feel dumb.

[@strive4252]

The difference is when the Muslims let a Jihad to the Holy Land there were no Muslims living there. When the Christians launched the Crusades there were many Christians living there who were under intense persecutions. You ignored so many details and continued this false idea that the Crusades were not justified. They were entirely defensive wars that saved Christendom even though much of Christendom was lost including the Holy City, North Africa, and Constantinople. You seem to have a lot of arrogance for someone who doesn’t know much about the Crusades.

[@MrTerry]

You heard what you wanted to hear. You have repeated the exact same errors he made, without even acknowledging how they are responded to. You said things I never said. You didn’t even watch the whole video, and likely not even half of of it. This is a dishonest response driven by some emotional investment you already had on the topic.

[@strive4252]

@@MrTerry​​⁠1. Kingdom of Heaven does not cover the Second Crusade, that happened 40 years prior to the setting instead it is Saladins Jihad, however you get the feeling that it is a crusade due to the movies bias to make the crusaders seem as the aggressors even though it is Saladin trying to take historic Christian lands. 2. The mankind the story of us is 100 percent biased and not out of context. They pushed the same nonsense that the blood in Jerusalem ran up to the knees which is literally impossible. American academics insist on making the crusades evil as like this strange peace offering to quell feelings about 9/11. Hence Obamas “remember the crusades!” 3. The crusades were allllll about religion. Every aspect of it was due to the deep piety of its people. 4. It is 1000 percent true that it is common that every teacher/professor nowadays acts like the Christians were Barbadian’s who attacked an enlightened Muslim world. 5. Why are you always bringing up the guy’s background without discussing yours? Do you have a bias? 6. You ignore Antioch the first city to call Christians Christians and a See of St. Peter and Jerusalem obviously the holy city, Alexandria which was made a center of Christianity by Mark the Evangelist who was trained by St Peter and this city produced amazing Christian leaders like St. Athanasius. These cities along with Constantinople and Rome made up the Patriarchates of early Christianity. It’s no joke when all but two are conquered and even today only one remains in Rome(thanks to the crusades). 7. The Crusades do not equal Jihad. Crusades require the necessities of a Just War coming from the framework of St. Augustine. Therefore they have to be defensive in nature and be about protecting the vulnerable and to treat the enemy with dignity. Jihads are unprovoked wars that get there model from their founder. 8. It’s common knowledge that the reason we have any of the classics is because of the monks that tediously copied them into Latin especially the great Greek philosophers so loved by St. Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. 9. You are right the Seljuk Turks were evil. 10. What about Bishop Gunther and the 12,000 Christian Pilgrims and only 2,000 survived that were killed on Good Friday in route to the Holy Land. 11. Christians were still persecuted under the Abbasid’s . This was Christian lands were forced to live as “dihimmis” and had to pay “jizya” taxes. 12. The Pope didn’t want control of the East. He wanted to defend it. Sure he wanted the Church to reunite, but the main goal was to defend Christians from being brutalized. The Western Christians had promised the emporer to return lands to his control once they conquered it, but he abandoned the crusaders after Nicea forcing the Crusaders to set up the Crusader States. 13. Historically most Lords and Nobles who took the cross were first borns. The idea that people went to “move up in rank” is false. Again you aren’t recognized long how real peoples faith was back then. 14. Yes the schism did cause issues. Especially since the Byzantines asked for help and then bailed on the Crusades as soon as they got started. 15. The Church did run this. The official leader of the first Crusade was Bishop Adhemar the Papal Legate. A Papal Legate acts as the Pope in his absence. 16. He did not ignore the fourth crusade, but we should considering it wasn’t even a Crusade as every member was excommunicated by the Pope after the battle of Zara. Therefore not a Crusade as it no longer had the promises and protections of the Church that makes a Crusade a Crusade and not a medieval battle. 17. Bailen of Ibelin basically forced Saladin to allow some people out. Saladin still murdered innocents in cold blood and sold others to slavery. 18. Ever heard of the massacre of the Latins? Byzantium abandoned the West before the West ever abandoned the East. 19. The Crusades did not fail. They stopped Islamic advance into Europe. Islamic Jihad had reached France, Rome, and Constantinople. The Crusades stunted this and even temporarily liberated the holy land and parts of Egypt. Sure the Crusades were not wholly successful but they were successful in putting a pause to Islamic Advance before the Ottomans made another run.

[@strive4252]

@@MrTerry As you can see from the comment above I did watch the whole video and instead of calling me emotional and dishonest can you honestly answer me as to why the Crusades are painted as evil when they were fought with the attempt to save Christians in Christian lands when the Muslim Jihad was Muslim aggression in non Muslim lands. You multiple times equate the actions of the Franks with Jihad but you never answered this point. Instead you went Ad Hominen on someone you never met which isn’t the best move.

[@strive4252]

@@MrTerry Are you able to respond to my points?

[@victory4history]

Although the Catholics may have failed to conquer or stop the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, the Crusades did wonders for European Catholic society. They were great for economics, medicine, logistics, technological advancements, and the arts. They were incredibly beneficial for European society, and these conditions helped bring about the Renaissance.

[@danhackney8652]

I think the difference between what Constantine and Charlemagne did vs jihadists is that the former two did their thing despite what their holy Scriptures said they ought to do whereas jihadists are actively encouraged by their book to engage in jihad.

[@chivebutter8794]

Well... no. Both say pretty much the same thing about non-believers

[@Planet.Xplor3r]

Ah yes the same Quran that tells people to never kill those who surrender and to never kill children and condemned those who kill children supports isis. Also you conveniently forget how Muslims you meet will unhesitatingly talk about the crimes of isis and war crimes committed by them and how u Islamic they are. Of course you are an idiot so I'm surprised you know how to read given the printing press is banned by your sugar daddy

[@danhackney8652]

@chivebutter8794 Okay, show me where holy war is encouraged in the Bible outside the conquest of Canaan. I think an exception should be considered with that because that obviously was a situation designated for a particular time and place because, well, it never happened again, ya' know?... Like, God never recommended that course of action ever again, and there was some really horrible stuff going down in that area that needed to be stopped. You know, like child sacrifices and crap.

[@A_foranonymous]

The quran does not encourage jihad

[@Narrator_of_Tarikh07]

Where does it say that ?

[@Ukalnsk]

To all true patriotic crusaders out there; War is bad, actually.

[@christsfollowers1651]

@@Ukalnsk reclaiming land that you lost by ivander is bad interesting 🤔

[@hokumdog]

Stopping Muslims from enslaving your people is good actually

[@Skeety08]

No.

[@yousseftrab3615]

@@christsfollowers1651 ok then according to you the holy land doesnt belong to you

[@yousseftrab3615]

@@Skeety08 yes

[@JackMarchbank]

You can't support crusades and oppose jihad at the same time

[@Mapperman-h5b]

‘Jihad’ means to struggle for your life or people. Starving could be considered jihad. Or being killed by a soldier if you are a child could be jihad.

[@strive4252]

Wrong you absolutely can.

[@suwakomoriya5145]

“Jihad” doesn’t always refer to martial combat, though? Some have used it as a way to refer to self-improvement(a “jihad” against one’s defects. A “personal jihad” if you will.

[@anathardayaldar]

He's speaking to his catholic audience to support his channel. Same as any other cherry picking, clickbaiting influencer.

[@danielcoats713]

Okay, I'm not a 10th of the way in, and after seeing that weird "Atheist director being biased toward calling Muslims good and Christians bad" thing, I already know what I'm getting into. As an Atheist myself, I already know where some of this is coming from because internet Atheism is often the only place people interact with the subject. If you were terminally online during the rise of popularity of Atheism on the internet, you'd often hear three camps of Atheists: 1. Atheists debating people about what religions are "better" (sometimes you'd hear folks saying Islam is better than Christianity, sure) 2. Atheists using their anti-religious stances to simply be racist 3. Atheists saying religion is just a mind-control mechanism for political or economic ends None of these stances really have much nuance, but the internet amplifies the loudest hot takes. Ultimately, religion is a codification of practices developed as a result of the experiences of a people. Sometimes, religion is appropriated for use by some unsavory people. I think it's pretty irresponsible to view any religion as good or evil. Clearly, Pax Tube is appealing to a conservative or even a Christian hyper-nationalist audience by suggesting that the crusaders, who you have never met and likely know very little about, are demonized in popular media and that the Crusades were actually good. I think this is further bolstered by the idea that he thinks Atheists are simply anti-Christian, because not being Christian is often considered un-American and Atheism often gets associated with Marxism in the far-right. Overall, this video you're reacting to is bound to be trash. Oh boy, and now I'm in the part of the video where he's talking about Jihad being about holy war and how Muslims are bad because they had slaves and there's still some slavery to this day. 1. I'm not the biggest expert on Islam, but from what I understand, Jihad is not about having a holy war; Jihad is a concept of internal struggle people have within themselves. There are teachings about wartime, but virtually every popular religion, including Christianity, have their own teachings on those subjects. 2. Christians have had slaves throughout history, and arguably have slaves working for them today in the form of third world exploitation. The USA would not exist if not for slavery, and folks like Pax Tube constantly refer to the USA as a Christian nation. Neither war nor slavery is unique to Islam. If we're being honest with ourselves, we should be critiquing the way we have allowed these practices to happen and how we benefit from the systems that run on war and exploitation. 18:47 Is Pax Tube doing Great Replacement Theory rhetoric for the 11th century?

[@hokumdog]

Leftists are obsessed with defending Islam because it's objectively evil

[@technoguy1290]

I think i have to correct you on the second part of your saying, about islam, Good on you that u said u don't know much about islam cuz u don't 1) Jihad most definitly means holy war, it means you have to fight, its not in any way similar to christian teaching of turn the other cheek, it was wait for the right moment to strike back, meaning if u r under majority non muslim rule, pretend to be their ally and curse in your heart, and when u r majority kill all of them. This is there in the quran and this is what muhammed did against mecca. And im not sure where christinaity says go and wage war. and calliphate is a actual thing in islam, the entire mulism conquest is driven by the "Caliphate" , caliphate means world without borders, they wanted to conquer all the nations of the world, cuz its in their quran, 2) Yes christians did have slaves, But christianity is also the thing which abolished slavery. give where credit is due. the difference between Christian vs islam when it comes to slavery is. Christian teaches doesn't have anything which tells you to get slaves or its good or right, instead it says "u r neither jew nor gentile , neither free or slave, u r all one in christ". When u compare that with islam, muhammed himself had slaves, it specifcially even mentions he had black slaves cuz they were lesser or something. and slavery was totally allowed, and stuff like sex slavery is totally allowed, muhammed had countless sex slaves and approved of it. That's the difference, one religious book doens't allow while other religious book openly endorced it. I think this is called whitwashing of islam, even most muslims today don't know these stuff exists in their book. that's the difference between the two. When one does it, he is doing inspite of the religion condemning it, when the other does it, his religion says its totally a good fine thing after all their greates prophet did it.

[@Michael-zi3kk]

​@@technoguy1290Correct me if I'm wrong here. But didn't Abraham own a Slave and when Moses took over the amalekites didn't he order the enslavement of all the virgin women? And aren't there versus from St Peter telling slaves to obey their masters? Also isn't the verse about Jihad in the Quran only talking about a specific circumstance because I know there are verses in the Quran that tell Muslims not to fight Christians or Jews?

[@technoguy1290]

@ Abraham did not own a slave, she was a servant more like midwife. Infact the issue was Abraham’s wife didn’t like the servant looking down on her after she got a son for Abraham, and Abraham was condemned for listening to his wife and marrying the servant. So it was definitely not endorsed but the opposite, Abraham was condemned for it. When Moses defeated amalekites he wasn’t ordering enslavement as sex slavery is prophibited, it’s one of those lost in translation thing, it’s more of taking them as wife as without getting married those women would die of poverty or worse cuz it’s not the 21st century, way different from a slave. The reason they were spared has nothing to do with taking them as wife but that these virgin women were the only ones who didn’t take part in sacrificing children cuz they didn’t have one , the sacrificing children is the reason why they killed the amalekites. And it is there in the law itself that sexual relationship with slaves is prohibited but they can marry a prisoner or a slave but if they marry them then they can inherit the property of their husband. When it comes to New Testament, the context is completely different. Paul(pretty sure it wasn’t Peter) is not saying that cuz slavery was good but cause Jesus said if someone forced u to walk a mile u walk two miles. Basically it’s the teaching of Jesus that we will be persecuted. But also we are missing a lot of context, we don’t know if it’s debt slavery or not. Debt slavery is more of servitude where u get house , food and even payment so that eventually you can buy yourself. So when u r thinking of slavery , slavery in Islam and America is way different from slavery in ancient world cause debt slavery is a completely different thing. So when a slave runs away it’s basically like he is breaking a contract which he himself signed up for to pay the debt. Basically like cheating a bank. It’s similar to how Paul himself didn’t escape the prison even when his shackles were broken cuz he didn’t want the jailer to be executed for letting them escape. Which lead to the jailer becoming a Christian. Also yes I did mention that when it says “don’t fight” that’s in context of if the Muslims are minority, basically if the Muslims are minority u don’t fight and wait for the right time to take revenge cuz u r in no position to win against a majority. And it literally tells don’t take Christian’s and Jews as friends but curse them in your hearts if u r not in a position to fight them. Yes it says don’t fight, but that’s in context of if they are minority. If they are the majority it says do whatever u want and take the power.

[@Michael-zi3kk]

@@technoguy1290 I disagree with you to a certain extent because in Genesis 16 Hagar was introduced as an Egyptian slave and regardless of if it was endorsed or not Abraham still made the decision to sleep with the slave who had no power over the situation. Second of all the reason why I don't like the answer you gave for Moses is because Moses could have just said don't kill the children either but instead he decided to kill the babies and infants as well and just keep the virgin women for his soldiers pleasure in numbers 31 verse 17 and 18. I see the defense that most Christians give for that is a verse which I don't really accept because Deuteronomy comes after numbers. The way I see it would be like if I said that there was never discrimination in America and I point to the 17 and 18th amendment that we have today and use it on the past. The point being that they didn't have the law against capital s with slaves during numbers. Also killing all of the girls family and then imprisoning them and keeping them as your wives kind of seems like slavery to me and the women who survived probably had some mental issues from seeing their entire families getting murdered by their current husbands.

[@michaellyndon6982]

Correction: Jesus in Islam is not God, but is considered Messiah

[@johnirby8847]

What is Messiah!?

[@michaellyndon6982]

@johnirby8847 Messiah is the Abrahamic concept that God promised that his everlasting kingdom would be established through someone of the line of David, who would save all true believers of a world without faith that oppresses them. Both Christians and Muslims believe this figure to be Jesus, as he spread the good news of forgiveness and everlasting salvation for those who repent and turned God (for Christians, faith in Jesus is necesary). Christians are the only ones who believe Jesus is God himself and a member of the Trinity. Muslims don't believe in the Trinity and merely believe that Jesus ushered in the era where people could understand salvation and where God communicated his promises of it to humanity. (Also, since the Messiah must win God's kingdom in combat, both religions believe that Jesus will lead the forces of God against those of evil after a thousand year period called the millinium, although the millinium looks different foe both religions)

[@The_Anti-Guide]

I'd like to answer your question at 2:24 because it's important to me. I answer this question on atheists as an atheist, and unfortunately, it's a bit lengthy, but necessary. Atheism is a hijacked term. Most self-proclaimed atheists today are basically just Anti-Christians. I know this because I was like this at one point myself. It wasn't until a few years ago that I realized my folly, the problem with my position. As I grew up, I increasingly came to be more and more concerned with ensuring I knew what the fuck I was talking about, and eventually I realized one key fact: I had never familiarized myself with the Bible. Most atheists out there are like that as well, but have yet to realize their issue. You can test this too, ask any atheist what the rest of the passage they quoted said. Every time I have, they delete their comment or stop talking to me. The Bible is structured in the perfect way that you can quote a section of it without context and it provides a reason to speak ill of it. But the context is crucial, and most atheists don't consider that fact, typically because they understand that understanding the context takes away their ability to hate Christianity. I currently believe an atheist is actually anti-Christian on principle, and if they can have a discussion with me knowing the Bible in context, I consider them a valid atheist. If they've read at least one other religious text, I consider them a genuine atheist. Atheism is, at it's core, the lack of belief in a deity or deities. A simple concept, but to truly grasp what that means, most atheists fail. Atheism for most gives way to hate against Christians, and it's unfair as well, since most atheists can't even tell you why other religions are wrong, and they naturally would be if one is atheist, since other religions have deities. I have read all three Abrahamic religions' texts and have weighed them against one another. I believe I understand the position of religion better than most atheists to be able to say all this. I would say my biases of religion stem from an objective understanding of their moral teachings, something that most atheists, again I say, unfortunately cannot say is true of themselves. That whole spiel I just gave is important to understanding the answer to "Why would an atheist talk about religions differently?" It is because they are not atheists. Their hatred of Christianity drives them to misrepresent Christianity, not only in it's theology, but also in their history. My studies of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have given me quite a lot of insight into why the world did what it did, and why it is the way it is today.

[@nearly_epic]

Most Atheists today aren't just people who don't believe in a deity, they are actively anti-religious.

[@muffinn1337]

So this could just have been a Terrible war for both sides, someone had to be Evil, and it had to be Islam. This is really the worst kind of History Nerd. Blaming people for being Biased and to fix that with his own biases.

[@tekdaystar345]

gonna let that Libya thing slide without commenting how slavery was allowed to come back there in the first place? I'm disappointed

[@russelljames5631]

The same people who are saying the crusades were justified(the rape, pillage and destruction of a people) are the same ones condemning October 7th.

[@Michael-zi3kk]

So this guy wants to talk about Muhammad owning slaves and saying that's why Islam is worse than Christianity? I don't think he's read the Bible because Abraham owned a slave who he capital r worded to have a child with. And the Apostle Peter in the New Testament told slaves to obey their masters.

[@lephinor2458]

He says this because if slaves allow themselves bear unjust suffering to follow in the image of Jesus Christ who also beared unjust suffering, they will for sure earn their place in heaven. And if a slave isn't loyal to his master and escapes Jesus unlike Muhammad is understanding and forgiving. 1 Peter 2:18-25 Next time try reading the actual Bible then just spouting atheist propaganda.

[@Michael-zi3kk]

@@lephinor2458 so you're telling me all slaves getting to Heaven if that's the case why don't we all become slaves and why would Christians not endorse slavery?

[@lephinor2458]

@Michael-zi3kk Their not going to heaven because they are slaves dumbass. They are going to heaven because like Christ, they are allowing themselves to endure unjust suffering.

[@lephinor2458]

@@Michael-zi3kk No it's not because they're slaves dumbass. It's because they are following the image of Christ, someone who volunteers to be a slave for some weird reason and the master are not following the image of Christ.

[@seanquinn4928]

During the dark ages, irish monasteries used monks to preserve classic knowledge and writings as well

[@gheddafiduck8239]

He definitely had a biased perspective but he didn’t tell lies

[@yousseftrab3615]

he told many lies wdym

[@gheddafiduck8239]

like?

[@yousseftrab3615]

@@gheddafiduck8239 the crusaders were good

[@gheddafiduck8239]

@@yousseftrab3615 from an European perspective the crusades were good, they were called when a Muslim power tried once again to invade Constantinople and when pilgrimage to Jerusalem was stopped, if a Christian power took over Mecca I’m sure Muslim powers would try everything to take it back

[@michael-gb3rn]

@@yousseftrab3615 but the Muslim expansion was good? you either condemn both of them or neither of them.

[@majorianus8055]

32:21 none of the participants in the 1st crusade were alive by the time Saladin capture Jerusalem. And no Saladin didnt gave the Christians of the city a free pass. He would have murdered every single one of them had it not been the solid defense by Balian. So he just ransomed anyone he can and then enslaved the rest. Not the rosy picture you have in mind about Saladin.

[@jolynekujo8811]

respect to terry for being unbiased and transparent while reacting to this video, he completely left out the fact that the Muslims were seen as liberators in places like Egypt and north Africa. The jizya tax and other taxes were significantly lower than those of the romans and the Muslims were far more accepting of differing faiths than that of the Europeans. And his point about slavery, slavery was a common practise at the time that was an integral part of the socio economic conditions of the globe, he is also forgetting the fact that slavery in Islam was vastly different than that of the Christians (though there were levels of brutality in the Berber slave trade) this brutality pales in contrast to the Atlantic slave trade which is sickening to read about. first reason is that it is highly emphasised upon a Muslim to free a slave for charity or repentance as well as the fact that slaves were not limited in their rank and status in society as you had some of the most wealthiest and powerful people in the ottoman empire (the viziers) were slaves. And Jihad is far more tame than the majority of wars at the time as you must abide by the rules and laws of jihad, cannot harm the environment, cannot attack the old, women and children etc obviously you have those whom do not abide by the rules and obviously the Seljuks at the time were brutish however this video portraying Islam in and of itself as a brutish religion displays his ignorance.

[@benjaminknorr7084]

You should react to one of Fredda’s history videos: he made a great video debunking Pax tube’s crusade justification video, and also makes other great history videos.

[@theCommentDevil]

I wonder if that guy defends the Albigensian crusade too.

[@hokumdog]

It was also based

[@majorianus8055]

Can mr Terry cite proper sources when disagreeing with the video?

[@ryanpeters1005]

For those who don't know, Pax Tube also defends the Confederate States of America.

[@velociraptor3313]

Really? Oh jeez (facepalm).

[@Pancasilaist8752]

Waw, who could have guess?

[@jacket8818]

Honestly I have no idea what is wrong with Confederate states of America and at this point I am too afraid to ask

[@Pancasilaist8752]

@jacket8818 what about maintaining slavery and segregation? Does that sounds bad to you?

[@jacket8818]

@@Pancasilaist8752 I am not being sarcastic here, I actually have 0 idea about it, like one time at a historical game added their flag and it caused a huge backlash, I just wonder what it did? And no, I am not being sarcastic I am just curious, I never studied that period of history and to be honest I have no interest over it so I have no idea

[@Aceman52]

I subscribe to Pax Tube, and he is an unknown apologetically right-wing creator. His videos present history from a very conservative perspective. This particular video paints Christianity as the victims of vicious Muslim attacks, and the crusades were a response to it. This vid feeds into the persecution complex that has infected many christians these days.

[@werrheinsmith]

i edge to this

[@TheCsel]

I think atheism has nothing to do with the movie bias, since both sides were extremely religious. I would say the movie bias is slanted to correct the viewer’s bias. This movie was only a few years after 9-11, Americans were very anti-Muslim, and generally ignorant about history, but definitely so when it comes to Islamic history.

[@yj9032]

I agree with his take on islam, but to say europeans were heroes 😂 is outright lunatic.

[@islammehmeov2334]

Just ask the Jews

[@chomskysfavefive]

The Muslims preserved that Roman stuff cause they took over Christian lands like Iberia and Eastern Rome and had access to them. It would be correct to say that their Golden Age came at Christianity's expense, although some of the blame does lie on the Western Church since they also had access to Italian sources and chose to keep people illiterate. There was a LOT of infighting sure but the Turks were a big issue for Eastern Europe, especially Byzantine, who was a big player in how the crusades started. They were objective failures especially through a moral lens, but I think it would be at least reasonable to conclude that the initial call to arms were justifiable.

[@KevFrost]

Excellent take down of biased ignorance. Bravo.

[@hokumdog]

Amerimutts will defend Muslim invaders with every fiber of their being

[@jordantremblayduchesne7490]

Now that we've seen the quite biased side of Pax Tube, I'd suggest to watch Fredda's reaction to Pax Tube's video, which is quite interesting and would make for a good react video I think

[@Noobimummo]

i think bro played too much of total war medieval 2 game

[@ch33les99]

He probably first learned about the crusades from assassins creed 1

[@hokumdog]

Why are you talking like a black "person"?

[@MichalKolac]

What about the crusades against heretics like the hussites

[@stillbrian9448]

Great video, crusades were awesome!

[@johnirby8847]

37:40 Socratic method!! You should've gone to law school!

[@carterghill]

19:20 My guy, you are listening to a list of Muslim conquests over Christian territory. He is making the argument that Christendom *in general* had cause for war against the Abode of Islam *in general*. I actually think it's pretty weird to take issue with generalizations without showing why they're invalid. Every Caliphate that took territory from the rule of other faiths did so under the exact same justification, it's entirely fair to generalize when talking about that, especially in the context of how Christians in general felt about that. He generalized them both.

[@Michael-zi3kk]

I disagree nobody is ever saying that all of Christianity is responsible for the Spanish Inquisition everyone says that it was Spanish Catholics who responsible for the inquisition. It is not fair to group in literally every Christian because of the actions of Christians in the far west. That would be like me saying that we should go to war with Malaysia because there's terrorists in afghanistan.

[@jeremiahsmith9109]

The Seljuks invaded Islamic Persia, and Islamic Iraq, and Syria. The Turks were a tidal wave that took everything in its path, and terry emphasized that there was a difference between the Levantine and Arab Muslims that had been ruling there for about 500 years in peace over Christian and Jewish subjects, and the Turkish Muslims from Central Asia that had fresh momentum and were running down everything that was in their way. However the video author didn’t make that distinction and instead said “Islamic expansion in Christian lands, woe to me woe to me” You can’t just generalize if you’re trying to be Sincere and honest when it comes to history. However the original Author is clearly making a propaganda piece and it’s not even well hidden

[@jeremiahsmith9109]

He attempted to connect wars that were hundreds of miles apart, among completely different groups of people, with entirely different motivations, perspectives, and goals behind them, and just clump them all together to “Islamic Aggression 😎” Muslims in Spain had a completely different relationship to neighboring Christians. The Muslims in Italy had entirely separate relations to the Christian’s in Italy. The Muslims in the Middle East- you understand. Generalizing all these groups is usually a sign of ignorance, or a clear indicator that you have a specific narrative to push.

[@carterghill]

​@@jeremiahsmith9109 What do you even mean it's wrong to generalize when talking about history? Seriously, think that through please. Not only is it necessary, it's an absolutely unavoidable byproduct of talking about history! Look, I'll show you: "Ancient Egyptians were very thorough with hygiene and beauty". This is a generalization about Egyptians that probably gave you no pause at all. There's no issue here. Now what if, in a video, I asserted that as a fact, and gave a few reasons for why we think it's generally true. If you actually took issue with it, would it not be on you to provide some reasons why it's not true before saying it's a faulty premise? Never mind the fact it's been thoroughly studied on its own in other forms. Seriously, before we move on, just copy-paste this into chatgpt or something: "Is it fair to say that vast majority of the Islamic territory that Christendom had political contact with was take by conquest?" It will tel you that it's absolutely true, and it will probably give you reasoning about as thorough as PaxTube gave in his video. In fact, I find it really funny you reject this on the premise that I (or PaxTube) am/are being ignorant. Seriously think about it, you're the one wilfully ignoring an indisputable fact. Okay you can't even make this up, I asked Chatgpt what it though and here's what it said: "Yes, it can be fair to describe someone as being ignorant if they accuse you of ignorance for stating that most Islamic rule was established through conquest, especially if they are dismissing historical evidence without engaging in a nuanced discussion of the topic." 😂😂 Look I don't wanna give you too hard a time man, but it's real dirty to accuse someone of ignorance when they're stating facts. You gotta do better than that man.

[@jeremiahsmith9109]

@@carterghill “Chat GPT is on my side, so really YOURE the ignorant one 😎” History is too complicated to be boiled down to two words. “Christendom” was really only in jeopardy on the frontiers so let’s look at each one. *The levant, North Africa, Middle East* taken in the initial conquests, a war purely of aggression, of Muslims and Muslims alone, Muhammad Didn’t expand outside the peninsula in his lifetime as he didn’t believe it was necessary and only took over the peninsula and consolidated. Abu bakr believed Muslims were much stronger than the two Infidel empires to the north, and with God on their side, Victory was guaranteed, and he believed jihad would encompass all of the unfaithful and the Submission to the God of Abraham, Adam, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad would reign everywhere. A war purely ideological and Religiously motivated, these are the wars Paxtube believes all wars between Muslims and Christian’s are about. *Spain* Several Rebellions and Civil wars later, the Ummayads took over, and sought to push beyond the rashidun’s borders. They fought some more battles with the Roman’s and even forced the Roman Empire to start paying tribute to them for peace, they pushed into Pakistan, and Parts of Central Asia, and on to Spain. Still ideological, Still religiously motivated. however many Christian’s in Spain would just submit to the Muslims without much of a fight, and Spain didn’t experience much uprooting of the existing Nobility, with many in the nobility converting on their own and integrating themselves with the Muslims, with many more Christians in the south either converting on their own or just paying jizya. The Spanish (Or German) King Roderic was said to not be very popular among the aristocracy with a succession that many nobles didnt approve of, and among his army he was even less popular, with many in his army being forced conscripts raised quickly to fight Tariq’s expedition, and a majority of his army being Slave soldiers, and so it’s no suprise that in one of the handful of Battles and skirmishes the Visigoths actually fought with the Muslims, his entire army deserted him, and he was killed in battle. The eventual Push into France was stopped at tours, and the Muslims would never go north again, out of fear of a rebellious Spain threatening their rear. To be fair, the previous king of Spain is rumored to have actually been ASSASSINATED in that battle, and his subjects hated him and he had to force many of his soldiers to fight for him. Spain was full of Germans, Native Iberians like the basques, Berbers, ‘Romans’, and Eventually invading Arabs, and none of them liked each other. You also had the Asturian kingdom in northern Spain which torched Hundreds of Miles of Land and sacked their own cities to deny them to the Muslims, then fortified in the mountains to launch raids and burn towns whenever they had the opportunity so the Muslims never went to France again until they had Spain under control. But the reconquest of Spain is not one continuous stream of “resistance” against the foreign barbarian. Many Muslims in Spain especially near the end of the conquest were just converted Spaniards or descendants of converts or Arabs. Even by as early as 850 there’s a renowned Christian Saint (Roderick) who had a Muslim blood brother, who tried to convert him to Islam. There are also many times you had kingdoms like Aragon allying with the Muslims more often than not against the French and the Castilians, with even Aragon Vowing to Protect every Muslim and Jew within their lands (a promise they would break when Muslims started submitting to Aragon and the reconquest would be complete) and many more times you’ll have Muslims helping Christians fight other Muslim Rulers, and Infighting all out the ass it’d be too complicated to do justice, but it’d be reductive to just say “Islamic aggression” and wipe your hands clean of nearly 700 years of Muslims in Spain. Edit: forgot to mention, You also had Visigothic Nobles in Spain actually petitioning the Muslims to attack, because many of them REALLY did not like roderic and preferred the Muslims over him, which is how the conquest of Spain was so quick and smooth. It was hardly a fight, with many nobles either collaborating with the Muslims or even going so far as to defect outright before the invasion even started.

[@debrickashaw9387]

2:30 Speaking as a swedish christian this is what I've noticed when it comes to american atheists. They have a bigger gripe with Christianity because that is how they grew up in most cases and Christianity is way more prominent in society than islam is.