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

Pax Tube's video on the Crusades is rife with dishonest, anachronistic and ahistorical portrayals of these conflicts and events. Worse still, this particular distortion of history which frustrates theologians and historians, sees Pax Tube entering the company of some of the worst people to grace this Earth.
Note; I am not a medievalist, nor am I probably pronouncing all the names here correctly. I am bound to make mistakes and welcome corrections in the comments.
If you enjoy the video, please leave a like, I'm told it helps. If you have questions or suggestions please leave a comment, I do my best to read them all!
-- Bibliography:
T. Asbridge “The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the
Holy Land” (2010)
J. Bale “The Darkest Side of Politics, II: State Terrorism” (2017)
R. Carroll “Pope says sorry for sins of church” The Guardian,
March 13th, 2000.
B. Catlos “Infidel Kings and Unholy Warriors” (2014)
G. Heng “The Invention of Race in the European Middle
Ages” (2018)
E. Herzig, M. Kurchiyan,
“The Armenians: Past and Present in the Making of National Identity” (2005)
Islamophobia.org “Center for the study of Political Islam” (2016)
K. Madigan “Medieval Christianity: A New History” (2015)
A. Malouf “The Crusades Through Arab Eyes” (1984)
M. Mjaaland “Korstog mot hellig krig”
Aftenposten, September 28th 2011
P. Pullella “Pope condemns violence in God’s name,
apologizes for past uses of force by Church” National Post,
October 27th, 2011.
A. Stanley “Pope Asks Forgiveness for Errors of the Church Over
2,000 Years”, NY Times, March 13th, 2000.
R. Steinback “The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle”, SPLC, June 17, 2011
TV2 “Utførte terror på merkedag for korsfarerne” July 29th 2011
A. Younes, “African refugees bought, sold and murdered
in Libya”, Al Jazeera (2017)
Music:
DIsco Elysium, Whirling in Rags Day & Night (2019)
#history #paxtube #response
----------------------------------------------------------
Second Channel ► @Fredda-Gaming
Twitter ► / punishedfredda
Patreon ► / fredda
Twitch ► / fredda_
Community Discord ► / discord
----------------------------------------------------------

[@ABOLISH_NASA]

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

[@anon-san3975]

NO FUCKING WAY IS THIS GUY FOR REAL?

[@eyraaaaaa]

genius

[@TheModdedwarfare3]

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

[@undrscrH]

no he's a turtle earth enjoyer

[@matheusfroehlich5727]

pin of shame

[@kmmmsyr9883]

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

[@sonofspardauser]

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

[@veg411]

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

[@myamdane6895]

Funniest leftist

[@noone-os5pj]

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

[@jeffersonclippership2588]

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

[@marshallsilverstar9636]

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

[@FreddaYT]

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

[@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporation]

Byzantine bois just can't catch a break ☹️

[@davidwright6591]

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

[@hedgehog3180]

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

[@EE-gv9wt]

@@hedgehog3180 i fucking love that podcast. We usually just glance over centuries of byzantine history and treat them as objects in histories of other polities, but the actual history of the eastern romans was so interesting and important for everything else happening at the time

[@ogedits123]

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

[@kellarmoore9983]

can confirm it was based

[@branomusuka9683]

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

[@MartNM]

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

[@keck4022]

@@branomusuka9683it actually happened tho, I was the speaker

[@ediodimacaroni]

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

[@thedemonhater7748]

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

[@G1hadi]

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

[@petergidai4740]

underrated comment

[@theodiscusgaming3909]

this is the best comment on this video

[@supersonicfan3522]

Fr I remember that

[@D4rkmatter]

Top comment

[@SamwiseOutdoors]

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

[@DANtheMANofSIPA]

The West had never been the same 😔

[@thenamesianna]

Venice be like: Hello, I like money

[@wilcowen]

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

[@wilcowen]

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

[@SamwiseOutdoors]

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

[@omarmatouq3855]

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

[@Savantastic]

Thank you

[@goyonman9655]

Yup

[@newend2116]

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

[@qymaen-jai-sheelal]

Jeez!

[@IvanHavid]

​@@Savantasticew, a synthetic man subscriber 🤢

[@Varan12341]

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

[@williamchamberlain2263]

People gonna people, wherever and whenever they are

[@posthawk1393]

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

[@meilinchan7314]

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

[@posthawk1393]

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

[@posthawk1393]

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

[@denniszaychik8625]

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

[@levongevorgyan6789]

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

[@ottersirotten4290]

based

[@denniszaychik8625]

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

[@levongevorgyan6789]

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

[@denniszaychik8625]

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

[@troopersteve2992]

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

[@bojangles2492]

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

[@greatbriton8425]

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

[@bas-tn3um]

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

[@viljaminieminen6925]

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

[@bas-tn3um]

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

[@Agora13]

Adult Eren Yeager avatars are always a red flag.

[@micromints1735]

It’s the equivalent of Joker pfps for anime

[@NeostormXLMAX]

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

[@Thatdoginme_m3]

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

[@enotsnavdier6867]

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

[@potatortheomnipotentspud]

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

[@mihailosaranovic5444]

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

[@enotsnavdier6867]

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

[@Apogee012]

yes@@enotsnavdier6867

[@Apogee012]

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

[@Rifqiethehero]

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

[@Bigfatfrog83]

@@enotsnavdier6867yes but because they were enslaved by Turks

[@geovane19]

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

[@Chris-pg7qg]

LOL

[@rorgorr2339]

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

[@alexanderthesortof9550]

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

[@sharkape]

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

[@Western-Supremacist]

I agree, propagandistic nonsense from start to finish.

[@elontusk9167]

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

[@REAPERthePRUSKIE]

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

[@prominentmagpie7153]

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

[@jamestargin2957]

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

[@TAP7a]

where prussia

[@thomasjones3206]

Did he even say the reconquesta was a crusade?

[@i____amakiwi]

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

[@fullmetaltheorist]

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

[@hue-wp6ip]

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

[@fullmetaltheorist]

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

[@hue-wp6ip]

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

[@kovacsnovak6745]

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

[@dr0g_Oakblood]

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

[@TheoEvian]

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

[@jmgonzales7701]

what are trad caths?

[@_extrathicc]

​@@jmgonzales7701Fascists larping as catholics

[@renlevy411]

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

[@voxpopuli8132]

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

[@jonnialavuo]

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

[@christopher9727]

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

[@KamsiyonnaEzepue]

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

[@no-lifenoah7861]

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

[@KamsiyonnaEzepue]

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

[@senlim8461]

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

[@Sosarchives]

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

[@something1600]

Yes.

[@tricksnotreats7277]

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

[@hedgehog3180]

Oh in the thousands.

[@ЛехАскольдич]

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

[@johndorilag4129]

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

[@АдамДзоблаев]

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

[@FreddaYT]

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

[@emperoremperor1486]

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

[@Mag_ladroth]

@@FreddaYT What about the Children's Crusade

[@SulistaComunista]

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

[@enossoares6907]

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

[@brix7738]

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

[@mungobestmage]

I encourage everybody interested in this topic to go read some actual literature on it. Even a quick parse of wikipedia will quickly show both Pax and Fredda are painfully biased in one direction or another.

[@adamyang3264]

100%

[@basicman1357]

Not disagreeing with you but, can you point out a few examples?

[@mungobestmage]

@@basicman1357 do as my original comment suggests and go educate yourself. The whole point is to go find reliable information instead of trusting random internet videos and comments. If you care to have an impartial view, that is; I suspect you don't, based on this comment.

[@basicman1357]

@@mungobestmage don’t have to be so defensive eh? Just want to know what different people have to say

[@bruhnou1348]

​@basicman1357 free palestine! 🇵🇸

[@xolotlaxolotl8934]

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

[@InquisitorThomas]

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

[@FreddaYT]

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

[@sinthoras1917]

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

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

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

[@sinthoras1917]

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

[@LeandroCapstick]

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

[@McFrax]

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

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

How is the start a personal attack?

[@meatyspartanguy]

@@augustuslunasol10thapostle Accusations of inceldom

[@DirtyDan77]

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

[@GerardDeRideford]

Typical soytard debate

[@the_demilich1312]

I hope you will recover from his triggering language.

[@Yell0wCheese]

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

[@FreddaYT]

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

[@جعفرمعفر-ط3ج]

@@FreddaYT lol

[@austinlaplante4203]

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

[@kitcloudkicker14]

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

[@based_kaiser9015]

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

[@kitcloudkicker14]

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

[@goyonman9655]

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

[@dopaminedreams1122]

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

[@arandomguy656]

to be fair, i don't think the crusades should be viewed with as much emotion like this. I think we should just view them as just one of the many events of history, from the neutral perspective of a historian. The crusades weren't bad or good, they were just the result of political strife between faction as well as religious zeal , but that stuff wasn't new, in fact it happened several times before and after them. They are distant events that i as a history nerd find fascinating but should not be politicized. We should not view one side or the other as good or bad, but just analyze the fact while taking into account or biases and using the standards and values of the time (though even by the period's standards, crusaders were indeed quite violent in the first crusade).

[@artifaxx9986]

Yeah a historical perspective. They had negatives and positives. Positives it benefited Europe with Islamic knowledge propelling them to the scientific revolution and more. Negative because it carried out the genocide of Jerusalem and caused a lot of death. But I think the video is trying to set the balance to neutral here because the one by paxtube made the crusades only good

[@jeanettewu2537]

Tell that to all the Crusades apologists who seem to infest the subject. All sarcasm aside, though, valid take, one that every historian should keep in mind.

[@alexlehrersh9951]

Nope Pax did not make the crussade only good I asume you didnt watch the video@@artifaxx9986

[@suwakomoriya5145]

I agree with everything you said. I think people in general are too obsessed with the crusades when religious conflicts were aplenty both before (persecution of Jews and “heretical” Christian’s) and after (reformation and the Thirty years war). For the Muslim side, there was persecution of Zoroastrians, and after the crusades, there were conflicts between the Islamic gunpowder empires. As we can see from these examples, the crusades are just another example of historical conflicts, and when people mention them it’s usually for some agenda. Ironically, there points in history where the crusaders traded with Muslims. Why don’t people talk about that as well?

[@infallibleinterpreter]

Yeah while by our standards the crusades were horrible in reality they were no more brutal than any other standard medieval war.

[@Christipher-f7m]

Many points in this video fall apart if one accepts that there was a broader Christian identity. Fredda clearly doesn’t believe there was such a thing. But once one takes this perspective, you realise that “Franks invading the Levant” is at best a biased modern view. From the perspective of the Franks they were Christians taking back the Holy Land after centuries of Islamic aggression. Many contemporary left (and atheist) scholars are unable to recognise that Christians were struggling to preserve their identity. Often (as Fredda does here) these scholars will cherry pick examples of benevolent Muslim rule, whole completely failing to take evidence such as the almost complete extinguishing of Christianity in Islamic lands which we KNOW has been the outcome of Islamic rule. We also know of the continuing persecution of Christians in these Muslim lands. It boggles my mind that this simple evidence isn’t even considered. Instead, we are treated to a scrutinising every misdeed of the Crusaders, without recognising or speaking to the justification of the Crusaders stated intent: to liberate the Christian world form Islam. This is actually a debate that should involve far more than back and forths of biased history, but also social data, philosophy and theology and look at these events as processes that are still ongoing as opposed to the modern academic move of implying events discretely fit into academic ‘ages’. But I won’t hold my breath, because we have not seen scholarship like for 50 years now, since Western academia completed a move from Christian to atheist leftest and now to (minimally) soft Marxism. People like Freda mistake make the classic liberal mistake of assuming modern historians are necessarily better than past historians. What is mostly distinct are the so-called theoretical lenses modern historians use compared to the older ones. These lenses are nearly always based on critical theory, not on some kind of hard empirical foundation. In other words, most modern academic history should actually be named “History interpreted through contemporary critical theory”. And indeed, most papers and books will begin by telling you all the interpretive “lenses” the author will use. Just because these lenses are trending in academia, it doesn’t at all follow that they are more meaningful than prior Christian influenced lenses.

[@theokra]

What is a Christian? the indigenous Assyrian, Aramean, Arab and Persian Christians for the most part did not subscribe to the same form of Christianity as the Crusaders, in fact they were persecuted for hundreds of years by Byzantium and condemned at Church councils for being Miaphysites, Monophysites, Nestorians, Arians or Donatists. No wonder they gladly submitted to the Arabs who granted them religious freedom for taxation.

[@rafexrafexowski4754]

​@@theokra You have to be joking, right? Donatism and Arianism were extinct by the time of the Arab invasion. Miaphysitism and Nestorianism on the other hand were only condemned and never persecuted in a major way. Multiple Christian historians from Damascus and other regions, some of whom subscribed to those condemned views, tell us of the brutality of the Arab invaders, who leveled churches, broke crosses, and murder people in masses. All the documents that show the Arabs as civilized, like the famous Pact of Umar, are late, unreliable, and most likely forgeries.

[@geoffroydegodefroy2374]

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

[@Pompeius_Strabo]

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

[@geoffroydegodefroy2374]

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

[@charlesk22]

​@@geoffroydegodefroy2374thanks for the recommendation.

[@LuzMaLopez-uq6xl]

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

[@LuzMaLopez-uq6xl]

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

[@hedgehog3180]

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

[@jbstarkiller4626]

you're ignorance is showing.

[@potassium3550]

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

[@skyeplus]

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

[@meme-potentialsearch8010]

Wrong. Armenians rebled against arabs, establishing independent kingdoms and only after that greeks attacked. Arabs were colonizing our lands, not "coexisting". Like they colonized North Africa.

[@Tarathiel123]

Wrong. Armenians sometimes rebelled, at other times they preferred the Arabs over the Byzantines, they were stuck between two of the largest powers in the world at the time. Independence was tenuous at best. The Armenians helped the Caliphate over the Khazars, there were rebellions whenever Islam was forced or the jizya was increased. In 885 Armenia was established a buffer state ultimately. To say it was because they were attacked its the opposite, it was Byzantium and the Caliphate.

[@MingerJerome]

Nationalists when history isn't a simple, romantic narrative of victimhood and triumph in which their nation is god's chosen ;((((

[@randomhuman2595]

​@@Tarathiel123 Fascinating

[@tomdalzell2407]

FALSE. Muslim rulers never ever tollerated Christianity. Instead, they gave their subjucated Christians 3 choices: 1) Convert to Islam. 2) Be beheaded. 3) Become a subservient slave.​@@Tarathiel123

[@CatholicCrusader__30]

ya this guy don't know what he is talking

[@ForelliBoy]

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

[@norikofu509]

Those were invaded by "cam girls"

[@ForelliBoy]

@@norikofu509 fair enough

[@Beatboxerskills]

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

[@yourgrandpa179]

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

[@settratheimperishable7800]

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

[@thenobody1641]

Paxtube literally called the fourth crusade a dismal failure

[@fenixchief7]

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

[@daniel8181]

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

[@Moderately_Merciless]

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

[@ShepardCZ]

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

[@jurtra9090]

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

[@davidmason4244]

They are.

[@duruarute5445]

@@davidmason4244 they were slavers?

[@jfournerat1274]

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

[@jfournerat1274]

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

[@davidmason4244]

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

[@MrDarthtelos]

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

[@Jack-iu2gl]

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

[@thepakistanipotato]

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

[@bjcantrell1990]

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

[@thepakistanipotato]

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

[@isaiahburns9926]

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

[@ClubOneUwU]

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

[@theencoder1575]

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

[@lennipulkkinen6446]

Looks like an old finnish map for me

[@kovaketas8271]

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

[@petitchatontoutmignon8639]

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

[@commandercorl1544]

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

[@aclumsyspycrab5289]

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

[@TheoEvian]

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

[@girthquake5231]

It's about as believable as a soap opera.

[@burakasik3937]

​@@TheoEvianturkish soap opera plot litterally as a turk

[@TheoEvian]

@@burakasik3937 i know i am referencing one i know

[@ivanl.1881]

Hope you all have a nice day.

[@HeartAttackInBlackHairDye2019]

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

[@SuryaGupta-m6j]

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

[@suwakomoriya5145]

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

[@FEZASA727]

Thanks man, I hope you are doing well too.

[@olekcholewa8171]

A totally nice day?

[@octavian8604]

The fact that a professor (who by the way offered to show one's credentials to Fredda [browse through the comments]) tried contacting this youtuber for academic reasons (corrections) and got immediately dismissed speaks volumes about this channel.

[@Minezanians]

Fredda you didn't even need to make the video I would of just shown the gura shit and that would be enough 😭😭😭great video though my understanding of the crusades largely came from my time in middle school in the mid 2010s so I honestly learned a lot here

[@kakahass8845]

I am genuinely surprised that screenshot is apparently real I could've sworn it was a meme.

[@helloneighbour2408]

Right, I hate race play so much it's 1023524130 times more racist and degenerate than anything these so-called ''christians'' call degenerate

[@MightyBison4]

You didn't learn anything. You just spent 30 minutes (I admit I did the same) sitting through logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and willful ignorance. Fredda is a joke and it's clear he's very biased and doesn't care about the truth

[@insertnamehere1258]

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

[@coryfice1881]

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

[@insertnamehere1258]

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

[@cleaverenjoyer]

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

[@goyonman9655]

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

[@CollinRezac]

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

[@sully1492]

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

[@neoqwerty]

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

[@sully1492]

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

[@goyonman9655]

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

[@sully1492]

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

[@goyonman9655]

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

[@John_Wall]

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

[@Flintynicomod]

Actually good comment

[@minestar2247]

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

[@EuGeez]

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

[@minestar2247]

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

[@Neptunes_Bounty]

​@@EuGeezPot calling kettle black.

[@theoheinrich529]

banger ending, tradcaths are beyond hyprocritical when it comes to making a stance

[@My-cat-is-staring-at-you]

*cough* Nick Fuentes

[@goyonman9655]

No They're consistent

[@apsinthos5439]

"Look, this guy using 'The Anti-M*slim Inner Circle' as his source, clearly he is biased" Two citation later in the video: "Infidel Kings and Unholy Warriors" 🤨

[@Devonlewis537]

It’s unnecessary to attack his character just prove him wrong.

[@christianmiller9934]

No not really Pax tube is a right wing Christian and clearly is trying to push a certain narrative we will call that out

[@christianmiller9934]

How about you watch the full video lol

[@KloKiller1]

Starts with attacking the person not the idea. A classic

[@archiebuchan2563]

Well he’s got about 28 minutes of attacking the idea right after

[@candaniel]

@@archiebuchan2563 He didn't attack the idea of the much larger Muslim aggression preceeding the Crusades at all. He focusses on irrelevant details while ignoring Pax Tube's (correct) point. This video is trash.

[@archiebuchan2563]

@@candaniel his point is that pax is inherently wrong in his framing of an evil Muslim empire rivalling a good Christian empire- just like it would be wrong to present the inverse. The “much larger Muslim aggression” were unrelated groups that didn’t have as huge an effect as Pax suggests (whilst conveniently leaving out the Christian groups who did parallel acts. In the end the crusades were just empire expansion under the guise of religion from two morally corrupt sides.

[@alexlehrersh9951]

And Pax didnt say evil and good. Pax did say it was a logical follwoup of the islamic wave and was not out of the medival standart at that time But everyone who is not anti cristianity is a facist incel for you@@archiebuchan2563

[@GerardDeRideford]

@@archiebuchan2563are you crazy? Muslims pushing into Europe from both the east and the west while pirating in the Mediterranean had no effect?

[@thunderwing2124]

So this debunking video feels personal, what with the insults at the beginning. Hard to feel that this guy isn't biased

[@biscuit4951]

He's a Norwegian commie, of course he is biased

[@ColourizeTheStreets]

Agree, he even says he hopes Pax burns in hell at the end. Sounds like something an evil crusader would say about his enemies. He makes a lot of good points with good references, but just like Pax this video is extremely bias.

[@LonelyKnightess]

Bigots don't need to be treated nice, a bias against misinformation peddling fascists is good and you're deeply in the wrong if you find that troubling.

[@thunderwing2124]

@LonelyKnightess Sure, but then it makes him sound like an extremist or bigot too.

[@LonelyKnightess]

@@thunderwing2124 No it doesn't lmao. You aren't an extremist or a bigot for not liking Nazis. If you think it's extremist to say Nazis can go fuck themselves, especially when their ideology has *every year this decade* led to hundreds of innocent deaths, then you are the one who needs to reevalute your viewpoints. If you try to be some sort of enlightened centrist between the Nazis and those who oppose them, you're just a diet Nazi. Oppose them or fuck off, we don't need to constantly bend over to be 'fair' to a group of genocidal idiots who base their viewpoints off of hatred of other races. If that's bigotry to you then you don't know bigotry, and should consider listening to victims more than you listen to Nazis.

[@mjr_schneider]

I thought Heng's characterisation of Bernard of Clairvaux's quote in _De Laude Novae Militae_ was a bit misleading. Bernard never singles out Muslims in general as being "malefactors" (he never mentions Muslims by name, only "pagans", which includes the pagan Wends) and shortly after saying that killing malefactors is not homicide he writes: "I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than that the rod of sinners be lifted over the lot of the just, and the righteous perhaps put forth their hands unto iniquity." Also later on in the text he praises converts to Christianity joining the Crusaders from Egypt, which would also seem to undermine the idea that his view could really be called a form of proto-racism. That's not to say that he wasn't advocating for anti-Muslim violence, only that he doesn't actually go so far as to declare Muslims to not be human (only that they are "sinners" in need of punishment, at least when they are attacking Christian lands). Otherwise though, a very good and informative video.

[@paperbackwriter1111]

I did a double take when I saw „gates of vienna“ on the guy‘s bibliography.

[@stephenmel8630]

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

[@jamesnelson9919]

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

[@stylesmarshall6990]

Twas a damn good character attack tho

[@alessandrozanzarella9203]

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

[@sonderistic7664]

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

[@alessandrozanzarella9203]

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

[@ВаняТумасян]

This video is full of inacuracies but I will only stop at one: Armenia. It is a well known fact Armenia has NOT been in a bad relationship with Bizantine because Armenia was a majority christian country. Islam, on the other hand, more specifically - turks, were an absolute bane. There was little to no diplomacy, only murder and pilage of armenian lands by turks for years. The rise of Islam on the whole and fall of Bizantine was a blow so crushing to Armenia, it almost ceased to be as a country. So no, Pax's video was entirely correct on this point.

[@rick7424]

Byzantium has at times occupied Armenia. It was a complicated history. Though they definitely preffered the Byzantines over Iran, your conlusion is a generalisation of hundreds of years of human history.

[@Rag_ab]

Exactly there has been numerous armenian byzantine Kings this video is so innacurate I'm watching it for fun at this point the so called debunker is just spewing his own bias

[@thedemonhater7748]

Armenia and Byzantium had a complicated work relationship, alternating between cooperation and subjugation. Basil II basically bullied a lot of Armenian princes to just hand over their sovereignty lmao

[@christianmiller9934]

Turks and Islam are not the same thing lol

[@christianmiller9934]

@@Rag_ablmao please name one thing wrong in this video keep yapping

[@yelrahkcorb]

So a war in response to multiple large conquests of land is wrong? Not at all. Some of the stuff that happened during the war was wrong? Sure, that happened with every war.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Yes _but_ Paxlord claims that _everything_ that was wrong was because of Muslims, and _everything_ done in the crusades was justified. Which are both obviously lies, but if you look through the comments you'll find plenty of folk who like Paxlord because he's expressing what they want to believe for various reasons.

[@SI-cd7xs]

@@williamchamberlain2263 it took Christianity 300 years of being put to the sword by Islam, having 2/3 of the Christian world conquered - with millions butchered, and over a million more Europeans carted off across the Mediterranean into slavery before the first crusade was called. There’s no way to spin those facts as both sides. Also, for 600 years after the crusades failed millions of European Christian’s continued to be killed and enslaved primarily in Eastern Europe. You can’t spin over 1000 years of constant aggression.

[@juwebles4352]

@@SI-cd7xs You act as though the crusades were an inevitable response and not just a move to reestablish the waning authority of the church over the various squabbling warlords of feudal europe. Also are you just going to ignore the multiple papal edicts that had to be issued telling Christians not to sell Christian slaves? Trying to act as though these religious wars were all islams fault is a frankly childish view of history. You seem to view history as though it were warhammer 40k lore.

[@eaar]

@@juwebles4352 it doesn't really matter the political reasons, the point is that an empire was and had been encroaching on christian territories for a long long time. The increasing concerns over time about which country is the next to fall to their islamic neighbours gives a reason to declare war. Bad things happen in war, especially at the time period. The fact of the matter is that people were getting invaded left right and centre and the people worried about being the next victims made an alliance to fight back. thats literally just how things work in geopolitics.

[@juwebles4352]

@@eaar What the fuck do you mean the political reasons don't matter when we're discussing POLITICAL HISTORY? Did you even read what I typed? I'm not making a moral grandstand about how "its not their fault' my point was that to lay the blame of the crusades at one religions feet entirely is childish and not borne out by the facts at all.

[@marcello7781]

The channels that claim to fight old myths by bringing counter myths are truly boxes of gems (of hilarity). I remember this Spanish channel called Brigada Antifraude who vows to fight the Black Legend (anti-Spanish propaganda from XVII century) and while at first it seems quite nuanced, all the efforts are gone when stuff from the White (or Pink) Legend is brought, along with the premise that almost anything going wrong in Spain and Latin America is the result of some worldwide "Anglo" conspiracy theory (with the occasional "woke" boogeyman).

[@adelinod.5568]

Spaniard naZionalists are such a special breed :). One could imagine how awful was the Spanish Empire just seeing how awful are current Spaniard rightists and naZionalists

[@LuzMaLopez-uq6xl]

Que sorpresa ver a alguien como tú en esta clase de canales, por lo general los chairos no saben hablar inglés jajaja

[@marcello7781]

​@@LuzMaLopez-uq6xl"Alguien como tu"... ¿nos conocemos? No me parece haberte visto antes, pero de todas formas te agradezco por el cumplido, pues si discernir de leyendas coloreadas significa ser chairo, a mucha honra. 😉

[@LuzMaLopez-uq6xl]

@@marcello7781 Carnalito color mole (porque todos los chairos son color mole) con tan solo leer cualquier libro sobre la Europa Moderno-Temprana uno puede darse cuenta que había una clara animosidad Anticatolica en la época que se trasladó a un odio a la forma política Imperial de la España Moderno-Temprana, la mayoría de la gente que se da cuenta de esto son ingleses y alemanes, por cierto, respecto al tema recomiendo a Benjamin Schmidt, a Dalmacio Negro, y Remi Brague en el área de la filosofía. Todo esté odio "espiritual" por así decirlo también se ve reflejado en el odio y desprecio que la Europa protestante ha tenido siempre por Rusia, por cierto, también de tradición imperial, solo que Bizantina en lugar de normativa-romana

[@blablasaurusrexass2103]

Creo que te veo en los videos del sebas xd

[@OR56]

It's quite easy to condemn the "find out" when you ignore the 800 years of "fuck around".

[@chrissant6277]

@@kevinortiz2597 So... how?

[@briantarigan7685]

lol, The muslims conquers Jerusalem from mid 8th Century AD yet only 500 years later does, the retaliation came, even then, the sacking of Jerusalem by the crusader is so brutal beyond measures.

[@Inventor1488]

​@@briantarigan7685W crusaders

[@FengBaoYolotli]

@@Inventor1488psycho

[@gangstaspongebob3622]

Cope harder​@@FengBaoYolotli

[@Siil2001]

10:14 If it wasn’t that bad expanding your empire and mistreating people on those times. What makes so bad the crusades?

[@GerardDeRideford]

Don’t bother, he is just pushing soy agenda. Google the sources he used lmfao

[@marny3559]

No, you don't understand, Christianity = Bad and Islam = Good.

[@generalpierogi7781]

Exactly

[@maciejbala477]

for the time, sure, not really a "bad" thing if you view it from that perspective, just a big conflict, which had a lot of impact. But big conflicts are not good

[@darkunor6687]

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

[@commissarkordoshky219]

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

[@sirellyn]

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

[@enriqueperezarce5485]

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

[@RandomThing-dg4ph]

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

[@RandomThing-dg4ph]

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

[@nanowithbeans2511]

This guy thinks the french revolution was bad by the way

[@mrvictorian4004]

Yooo based?

[@LPVince94]

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

[@kavky]

Was? Still is.

[@asdfkgkspr284]

@@kavky^this dude loves absolutist monarchy

[@hedgehog3180]

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

[@GratefulPrimate]

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

[@kszug]

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

[@christianmiller9934]

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

[@carrots4216]

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

[@eges72]

GOTCHA HAHA STVPIVD COMMVE!!!111

[@gnas1897]

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

[@fullmetaltheorist]

He has fallen like the west😢😅

[@kovacsnovak6745]

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

[@gnas1897]

@@fullmetaltheorist lmao

[@gnas1897]

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

[@norikofu509]

@@fullmetaltheorist Billions must COOM

[@baloocallout678]

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

[@normalperson-x7o]

National Fetish

[@pamlaurence2657]

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

[@muslimwhostrying]

Problem?

[@pamlaurence2657]

@@muslimwhostrying yeah keep coping

[@sillyguy-rv6xl]

​@@pamlaurence2657 and your people try to justified the same thing by saying "iSlAm Do The SAmE ThiNG So is Ok"

[@pamlaurence2657]

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

[@adamelghalmi9771]

@@pamlaurence2657 40 years isn't that long my man, that's the difference between the last muslim and christian state to abolish slavery. i believe the last was morocco, in 1913, and brazil and portugal were somewhere in the 1880's. nobody justifies slavery, it's a bygone practice now, ineffective and useless.

[@criedthekid]

It always restores my faith in humanity when I see people make response videos calling out clowns who misrepresent history for their own warped agendas. Well done, and thank you.

[@daniel8181]

Yeah thats why it was neat to see paxtube make that upload.

[@keto0303]

The only ones who misrepresent history are those who deliberately paint Christians and Europeans as the bad guys without considering the true circumstances

[@Raansu]

Now actually look up historical events and realize this video is pure BS lol.

[@Theguy-rk6vc]

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

[@phiscz]

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

[@ЛехАскольдич]

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

[@Theguy-rk6vc]

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

[@ЛехАскольдич]

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

[@Theguy-rk6vc]

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

[@ragnarok2678]

Bro begins by calling "Traditional Catholicism" a form of LARPing, and refutes the ideology by calling the people who follow it "incels".

[@yafufuf6694]

Because it's not traditional, it's a dogmatic reconstruction that removes any of the more comforting aspects of faith.

[@ragnarok2678]

@@yafufuf6694 Religion is dogmatic, it's not meant to cater and comfort to people's desires, it's unquestionable truth you must follow and adhere to. If that's not your jam, then catholicism isn't your jam. Religion can't bend to people's wishes, people's desires must bend to religion.

[@yafufuf6694]

@@ragnarok2678 what i'm saying is that it's ironic, that this "new age" catholicism involves bending the religion to fit lonely young men's ideals, and believing the pope to be unfit. it's dogmatic in the sense that it holds the wrong things to be unequivocally true instead of just whats in the gospel

[@ragnarok2678]

@@yafufuf6694 This isn't "new age" catholicism, what is new age catholicism is churches with rainbow flags, claiming that "maybe we shouldn't follow all that is in the bible to the letter", you know, catering to a more liberal progressive stance, which is not at all what catholicism had taught up until recent decades. And... Wrong things? Wrong in whose perspective? If you want to follow just what's in the gospel, then catholicism REALLY isn't for you, cuz that's protestantism 101. Religion is dogmatic, and that is specifically true for Catholicism, which means, as far as the religion is concerned, it doesn't hold the wrong things, because there is nothing wrong. It's not about you teaching the religion what is right and wrong, it's about the religion telling YOU what is right and wrong.

[@ragnarok2678]

@@dumbsimpleton207 No?

[@YahnatanBenAhav]

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

[@Gofaw]

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

[@YahnatanBenAhav]

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

[@Gofaw]

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

[@YahnatanBenAhav]

@@Gofaw Jesus bless you.

[@GottMitUns.]

Never ask an atheist why he always criticizes Christianity but never Islam

[@parse4842]

Because christianity are the source of all evil in this world

[@live10yearsinthejointreact80]

Prussian Coat of arms check. "God with us" check. definitely here just to disagree. Maybe check.

[@Andrewsk8]

@@live10yearsinthejointreact80 not funny.

[@live10yearsinthejointreact80]

@@Andrewsk8 wasn't making a joke just like to list the level of Christian Nationalism

[@mbrproductions160]

Because it’s not true, stop playing victim.

[@tyresr]

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

[@tyresr]

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

[@pissbabychudcel]

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

[@איןסוף]

@@pissbabychudcelread theory.

[@pissbabychudcel]

​@@איןסוף >read theo-ACCCKKKKKK ywnbaw bunkertroon

[@madmouse4400]

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

[@dirtydangler]

am I ever glad i'm at a point in my life where I can watch content I disagree with, the amount of information you learn. Able to see clear biases in previously held opinions ect. Just a random comment, thanks for the videos. Very thought provoking!

[@FreddaYT]

No problem!

[@dnegel9546]

Haha same here. The paxtube guy hates muslims, this guy hates christians. Im just eating popcorn 🍿😲. Enjoying the shit show. Hoping one day soon jupiter crashes into earth at 2mph hitting me first preferably. 😃

[@blacktigerpaw1]

Even genocide denial?

[@dirtydangler]

@@blacktigerpaw1 Every modern society plays its part in GeNoCiDe DeNiaL lol, see how useful ur comment was?

[@blacktigerpaw1]

@@dirtydangler Difference is, you people only believe that Christians - specifically white ones - are the *only ones* capable of this. I do not see BreadTube videos on Muslim conquests and what they did to the non Muslim populations. None. Instead, we get video like this one getting dates wrong and wholescale *ignoring* the Muslim atrocities done during the Crusader era. It's done on purpose, but at least you feel better than those dumb Christians, right buddy? There are other KZbin channels discussing both sides, like Real Crusades History. You aren't watching those, though, you're watching BreadTubers because it gives you that one of a kind smug satisfaction only leftists have.

[@wormius7350]

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

[@POSTELVIS]

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

[@elitecoder955]

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

[@boogalooter7280]

Because buddy is a typical western guilt hack

[@Real_MrDev]

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

[@FreddaYT]

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

[@Real_MrDev]

@@FreddaYT Alright, thank you mate ;)

[@something1600]

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

[@Real_MrDev]

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

[@cv4809]

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

[@brd6184]

As someone who has read a library of books upon the crusades and taken classes in my higher education pursuit upon Christian history, Paxtube’s or whatever his name is, video is more correct, incidents mentioned in this video were rare, and the majority of Muslim prisoners were treated kindly, while Christian prisoners not. I suggest everyone read 2 of the best books on crusades I have read: The Templars By Barbara Frale, and The Crusades by Thomas Asbridge. These detail the history of the crusades in unbiased ways and demonstrate who the real barbarians were.

[@ThedeadaccountAL]

Give us a specific source for your ridiculous claim.

[@MerlitaAves]

​​@@ThedeadaccountAL did u even read the comment?

[@davids7646]

​@@MerlitaAvesbro cant even read😂

[@christianmiller9934]

Yeah these sources come from widely biased people lol be quiet

[@christianmiller9934]

Majority of Muslim prisoners were not treated kindly lol like at the siege of Antioch were they were all beheaded or in Jerusalem were the population was massacred

[@Jotari]

I was that video a while back. My favourite part was when he talked about Kingdom of Heaven and said "The director is an Atheist, so of course the movie was biased against the Christians", as if the Muslims weren't also following a god.

[@cormoranoimperatore8413]

If memory serves me right there was also that one time the crusaders engaged in a little bit of tomfoolery in Venice for what I remember being hilarious reasons but it’s been a while since I last studied the crusades so don’t take my word for it.

[@Rifqiethehero]

I think they made a deal with Venice, in exchange for helping Venice attack a city in Bosnia, Venice Doge will give them ships to the holy land. But of course, the Crusader being a Crusader, they sacked the city that forced the Pope to excumanate (I don't know how to spell that word lol) them. I think this is the fourth Crusade. Ps. Pardon my English

[@warcriminalgaming2359]

They weren’t true crusaders since the pope instantly denounced them once they started doing that crap, almost everybody agrees the 4th crusade was terrible

[@dunamoose3446]

Fourth Crusade, they sacked Constantinople

[@educateyourself3872]

@20:00 dude totally skips over Pax’s point three because it’s indisputable lmao

[@chrissant6277]

@@kevinortiz2597 Say why he's wrong, or that the point is mute. Don't deflect.

[@educateyourself3872]

@@kevinortiz2597 don’t really care what you consider to be insufferable tbh but glad to see it’s working! :)

[@daeemabrar7243]

@@educateyourself3872 dude is right, say where he is wrong instead of being retared in the commet section

[@educateyourself3872]

@@daeemabrar7243 I said he skipped over point number three of Pax. This is true. He DID skip it. It’s not my responsibility to explain why Pax’s point #3 is right. It’s Fredda’s responsibility to explain why Pax’s point 3 is wrong. It’s the whole point of this video. How can he “debunk Pax ideology” when he’s skipping over major points??

[@daisyfish-fn4js]

I mean tbf the crusades were more complicated then modern historians like to pretend they are, and tbf most historians are ideological driven and tend to be liberal minded or left wing and susceptible to bias, so he's on the money there. Its also certainly true we tend to in our days a very ungenerous view of chrisitain and particularly ehats viewed as white European history, which has become extremely ideological and down right racist. Plus we don't seem to have the ability to contextualise anymore or genuinely employ empathy on historical events or people. To me that makes it even more important to try be as objective as possible, try to get into the mind of someone from that day, try to understand the difficulties they faced to try and understand the multiple motivations and causes and also outcomes. With that in mind it is true to paint the crusades as this act of evil with no real justification is at best simplistic and at worst historical properganda. It was much more complicated then that and there were several crusades with different reasons, motivations, justifications etc. But to me he is also commiting the same crime as the people he calls out. He is clearly an ideologue. He says he's a Catholic and to me he is viewing history though his own ideological lens again at best showing history in a simplistic way or at worst using it as properganda. So to be fair to him he's not totally wrong but he's also just as bad as them if he is allowing his own bias to view history.

[@alexjoneschannel]

calls him a larper then proceeds to larp nonstop

[@momoz1]

awwwww u mad

[@patrickszyman4152]

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

[@kaletovhangar]

Not a terrorist but propagandist for those.

[@Inventor1488]

​@@kaletovhangarsay Christ is king communist

[@kaletovhangar]

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

[@FengBaoYolotli]

@@Inventor1488Your imaginary friend isn’t real

[@CantusTropus]

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

[@zafeirioskolidakis2078]

I have read many things about the crusades and I think that it is one of the most interesting periods of history for someone to study, but in no means I support the crimes, which have been occurred during this period by both sides. I think that we can't judge the actions of neither side, because the mindset of the people from this period is very different from our owm. The thing we should do is study this period of time and learn that we must respect all the relegions.

[@Large2239]

100% I just cant stand watching people villainize one side over the other. Barring certain things like Nazis. They were straight up baddies. Mostly, its never a good side and bad. But you know, ideologies and weird education get mixed up into history and folks start getting uppity. My cousin, a history major, told me just recently that "The Muslim world was peaceful and enlightened, were welcoming to the west and the Christians had to go over there an fuck everything up. That's why the middle east is a mess today." Astounding.... Way to go Rutgers. How much do they charge again....

[@BlackJuck]

Killing in the name of god is not only counter intuitive but pure blasphemy.

[@FreddaYT]

Literally.

[@davidmason4244]

God doesnt prohibit killing in self defence and certainly not in the name to preserve his sons and daughters. Lol plenty of Christian's everywhere get slaughtered by jihadist.

[@BlackJuck]

@@sam-ht6qv working on a sunday is grounds for death too… but of course we don’t take the bible literally, the message of any religion should always be one of mercy, forgiveness and betterment of the self no matter what you believe in, anything different is a cult or a grift. You are and will always be your brothers keeper.

[@davidmason4244]

​@@BlackJuckand that's why temperance and mercy Is so taught in christianity.

[@k_aesar]

Matthew 10:34

[@mojolmao1752]

Just because the crusades were used by popes and people in power for other reason then to drive out the muslims doesn't mean that islam wasn't a serious threat to europe that was worth fighting against. I really didn't hear a single argument actually adress this issue

[@powzewu7854]

What about the cursades not targert at Islam?

[@jamesnelson9919]

Hey guess what? Europe was also a threat to itself. And Byzantine Christians initiated the threat to Muslims.

[@mojolmao1752]

@@powzewu7854 be more specific

[@mojolmao1752]

@@jamesnelson9919 I condem European fightings with one another

[@candypower9988]

"found that every historian was wrong" most historians where christians, and agreed to some extent with the justification for the crusades...

[@FreddaYT]

Yeah a hundred years ago maybe Also no they weren't lmao, most people in history haven't been Christian, let alone most historians.

[@louisryan5815]

Yes, the idea that the crusades were ever unjustified came about mostly from the enlightenment and the dishonest discussions from political propogandists the arose from them.

[@17year_cicada]

"Scholars of race and racism" is a very peculiar way of saying critical race theorists

[@FreddaYT]

Would you rather we be uncritical about whether our understanding of race is correct?

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

You don't know what critical race theory is. In fact barely anybody does, because it's an obscure niche of American legal studies. The only reason you've ever even heard the term "critical race theory" is because the reactionary propaganda machine decided to name this week's diffuse "politically correct/snowflake/woke" boogeyman after a (mostly unrelated) real thing.

[@louisryan5815]

​@@HeadsFullOfEyeballsit's mind numbingly stupid to have the nature of people's race even be deemed a relevant topic for discussion, nevermind study.

[@halguy5745]

​@@louisryan5815colonists invented race science. critical race theory is just a study of a society that believed colonial race science for way too long

[@davidmason4244]

​@noahr.5515race is a biological fact and a real thing not some social construct and if it is then it's as real as civilization

[@Paool]

I was going to give this video a shot but when he spends the first few minutes just hurling insults and calling the person he disagrees with an incel im checking out.

[@christianmiller9934]

How is calling what he is an insult lol

[@patatayt1919]

​@@christianmiller9934Are you dumb? Or does your brain don't work like Fredda's?

[@noriyakigumble3011]

I’m not a fan of KZbin history, or videos like this that are “debunking takedowns” because I just prefer to read up on history and educate myself on a topic independently However; as a history student myself. I HEAVILY appreciate your channels emphasis of historiography and the study of sources that others use, while also holding yourself to that standard, a legitimate breath of fresh air!

[@riptidegaming2823]

Yeah these types of videos be it the crusades were justified video or this "debunking video" isn't a great video to understand history best to look for yourself because it's mostly just drama

[@3Cheese42]

I would call this what it is, a FAILED attempt at debunking. If you have to start your argument with Ad Hominem, you know you have failed, and that you did quite successfully.

[@the_demilich1312]

I hope you will recover from his triggering language.

[@tankler5347]

fallacy fallacy lol

[@gamblinggangster8548]

I bet that was where you stopped the video wasn’t it?

[@dhimankalita1690]

Oh yes he used a word I don't like, so everything else he says is wrong. Grre

[@KMoon-mf6md]

The most hilarious feild attempt of trying to say "you feild to debunk his arguments" for saying things you dont like at first part of the video, bruh he incited every source to back his claims to debunk pax's arguments, even pointed the exact time when pax started his justifications 😂😂😂😂

[@BronanTheDestroyer]

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

[@KitchenSinkSoup]

whataboutism

[@xiuhcoatl4830]

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

[@KitchenSinkSoup]

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

[@johndee2990]

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

[@bosertheropode5443]

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

[@L6FT]

It's always a red flag when a debunking video begins with ad hominem personal ridicule.

[@thedemonhater7748]

Maybe Paxtube shouldn’t be the literal caricature of a far right loser then idk

[@L6FT]

@@thedemonhater7748 I'm not defending PaxTube as a person, or his viewpoints, I may even disagree with him. What I am criticizing is the shallow form of debating. People need to understand logical fallacies. I don't care if a person is ugly or charismatic, has chopped off their penis or is wearing a diaper, an argument put forth is still the argument put forth, regardless of who delivers it.

[@thedemonhater7748]

@@L6FT then you don’t understand who Paxtube is. He’s not some honest intellectual; he’s a theocratic white supremacist who will say anything to advance his agenda. He doesn’t fundamentally believe in the concept of truth; he believes that his people- white Catholics- are inherently superior, and that anything he can say or do to advance their position is the correct course of action. You can literally see this in any video he does. Listen to him argue that America isn’t a nation of immigrants- an objectively false notion by any fucking metric. Watch him compare the Seljuk migration into Anatolia to the modern far right great replacement theories on demographic replacement, when it took well over 200 years for the people of Anatolia to assimilate into Turkish culture and the Turks themselves in the modern day look more like Greeks than their own ancestors. Ffs, Paxtube literally paints any opposing argument with the SOYJAK. You want Fredda to treat this guy with more intellectual respect in one video than Paxtube has shown any of his contemporaries in his entire “career”

[@dixieslav1274]

​@@thedemonhater7748Wait. If the Anatolian (locals) were assimilated into the Turks (invaders) how is that not replacement migration?

[@sebb_c3160]

Ok, incel.

[@Dictatortot-n3d]

Norwegian People's Republic state-affiliated media. In this guys description. I'm sure he has no bias and will be 100 percent fair in his criticism...

[@matthewchen280]

gonna cry?

[@sephidude123]

so just doing a literal cursory search on the gawr gura thing, absolutely literally NOTHING shows up to confirm this. no clips, no nothing. You'd think that if something like that came up it would get clipchamped super hard like everything else she says does. Instead, the only thing that shows up is unironically pax tube making the accusation lol.

[@theomegapyrope9715]

tradcaths don't endorse heresy challenge

[@guernica5413]

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

[@olliebased777]

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

[@karimmodewna2457]

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

[@CheknoEternity]

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

[@karimmodewna2457]

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

[@karimmodewna2457]

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

[@KrisTheKrisMan]

Guys, the start of this video isn’t ad hominem. It’s outlining PaxTube’s biases by reference to the behaviour he’s exhibited online. Some of the language used (e.g. ‘LARPing’) may seem harsh but they’re clearly thrown in to outline the biases that PaxTube’s account is influenced by. If there’s any issue to have with this, it’s that this channel didn’t do the same for their own bias.

[@xxvxxv5588]

Hindus could not organize something similar to the Crusades, and as a result, the whole India came under the rule of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire.

[@AsthmaBreather]

The hindu religion doesn’t have a head of faith like the pope who the people would look up to also because the hindu kingdoms were disjointed

[@billisultan6224]

Hinduism was not an organized religion. They had lot of separate patron gods, thus unity was not possible.

[@Tabish_Nooristani]

Hinduism was never a united faith and never will he funnily enough

[@theentmarch]

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

[@iseeundeadpeople9]

Be less vague, Jordan Pterson.

[@rgeronimo9523]

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

[@iseeundeadpeople9]

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

[@RJ-bq5mr]

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

[@toadpa4565]

history shouldn’t be left or right politically. we should try look at history from an unbiased and factual perspective

[@gigachadgaming1551]

It that doesn’t give my side an ideological advantage at all!

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

Being biased and being factual are not mutually exclusive.

[@Follower_of_Yeshua]

@@InfiniteDeckhand Having a Opinion that Will Alter Your View on a Historical Event and Having a Truthfull, Factual and Unbiased Retelling of the Said Historical Event are not Mutally Exclusive, That Sounds Pretty Hard to Belive.

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

@@Follower_of_Yeshua The latter of which does not occur with Pax Tube. And no, when you have an opinion on something, you are automatically biased. Nothing is ever truly unbiased. That's a delusion that you ought to eschew.

[@Daza-La]

​@@InfiniteDeckhand are you insinuating pax tubes fantasy re-imagining of the crusades was historically accurate?

[@cornevanstraten7664]

Thanks for mentioning "incel" "terminally online" and "never having felt the touch of a woman" in the first two minutes of this video, making it abundantly clear that the rest of the video was not worth investing in. 👍

[@lazcentral4828]

im very sorry that you get easily offended. Better luck next time!

[@blackkn1ght]

Lmao, snowflake.

[@lettucearsebiscuits8375]

Yeah, I dont get why people who literally make online content call other people "terminally online". You'd have to be terminally online to find out whatever the f is happening in this world nowadays. I pray that Pax Tube doesnt dignify this guy with a response and leave him seething in his own corner repeating incel and whatnot over and over again, unoriginal "clever" haha no sex jokes, etc.

[@captaincrunch7]

Aww his widdle feewings got hurt

[@OlgaZuccati]

anyone who makes a post asking if a vtuber has had sex with a lot of people, including black men as if anyone should give a shit warrants every single one of those insults.