/ 220051141405247 I read an article about Baldwin I of Jerusalem, Sigurd of Norway, and the Siege of Sidon and comment on it. The article was written by Jeremias Wells. You can read it below: nobility.org/2011/03/28/baldwi...
Good point at the start, Islam actually had no concept of Crusades, up until the 1900s with the clash with Western literature and colonialism. They just viewed them as a continued series of wars really.
Anyone who thinks the Vikings became totally passive after adopting Christianity is mistaken. I used to think that common misconception until the past ten years. Researching my Norse side I came across soooo many wars, "excursions", and other violent military actions I didn't keep track of them. Basically after 1066 the Vikings were not much into raiding, which got them their reputation, but they did not put down their weapons and take up peaceful plowing, especially the Danes. The Danes seem to be the biggest troublemakers in history as it appears they started most of the fights, often against Sweden for some reason. They really didn't settle down until 1864 when they were stopped in the 2nd Schleswig War.
So when he read the part about the vikings hacking their way through Sidon I had the Skyrim theme playing in my head. Did anyone else have that experience?
can you please make a video on King Folques (I have no idea how to spell his name) of the kingdom of Jerusalem. I don't really know much about him and recently I have been playing crusader Kings 2 as him but I don't know who he is.
If more of the visiting Crusader knights & lords had stayed & established roots in these territories, what do you think would be the outcome? Would it have strengthened the Crusader position, or would it have simply led to more infighting & division? In a sense, what the Norse did in assisting the conquest of Sidon, and then returning home was wise: they completed their oaths & then moved out of the way. But on the other: these are the kind of Holy warriors that you want to keep around to defend your hard won holdings.
Real Crusades History i kbow that the pope and the church tried to encourage people to come and live in outremer and jerusalem. what if the pope had made a decree that every 20years every christian country must send 200knights or something like that to stay and live in the holy land, i know that the crusading tradition wouldnt come until much later but do you think this could have worked to strenghten the crusader states?
He is a fantastic teacher but they would NEVER allow him to teach this information. Thankfully we are able to hear him though. The crusaders must be considered evil religious bigots in order to reform our beliefs and history of our heritage. This is critical for the development of Idocoracy that has been created for us
Just for interests sake are you a Catholic/other Christian who began research on the crusades from a religious perspective, or are you just a very thorough historian?
Am I right in assuming most of the Crusaders of the first crusade would communicate with eachother in French? Still there must have been some difficulties speaking across the disparate groups?
Yes, I think you are right about that. But it wasn't always possible to communicate easily. Of course, there were many multi-lingual people in the Middle Ages. Godfrey of Bouillon spoke both French and German. And most armies would contain individuals who could acts as translators, so ultimately it wasn't a problem so great that communication was impossible. Then of course, many clergymen had skills in Latin regardless of their national origins, so, and every army had clergymen with it. Official documents were always written in Latin.
Real Crusades History Thank you very much. I have been watching all your videos. It's sad that this topic has been so highly politicized and can not simply be looked at objectively and historically.
This is probably the best crusade of them all. Very little cost to the crusaders. They didnt lose a single battle. And solidified the crusader kingdoms at the time. I am part viking. I love my people from norway! But mostly after we converted to christianity and left the barbaric pagan norse culture xD
My guess is it would not have been too different, the standard iron cap was pretty universal across the West. But I'm not positive about the Norwegians specifically.
A lot is written in: The Saga of Sigurd the crusader and his brothers Eystein and Olaf. You can read an english version here: www.sacred-texts.com/neu/heim/13sigurd.htm In Norwegian the saga is called Magnussonnenes Saga, or the Saga of the sons of Magnus
+Andi Skilz Technically we stopped being Vikings around 1066 when the King of Norway fails to take England but the great-great-something-grandchild of a Norwegian chieftain, W the Conqueror, manages to take it. Around this period Norway was well on its way moving from Thor and into the Bible. To say Vikings is mostly to refer to Norwegians before Christianity
+Roman Never understood why the viking age apparently ended in 1066. The only actual difference were that we stopped worshipping heathen gods and became christians instead. The actual act of viking (bay-ing), robbing settlements via boat, continued for a long time. King Magnus the Blind and his buddy Sigurd Slembe did this to such an extent that they could eventually afford to buy an entire invasion fleet to use against Norway.
11:14 This statement epitomized the study of history. 11:22 very true statement. It is very difficult for someone who has grown up in opulence of modern society to understand the motivations of people in different circumstances.
If you want your funny old religion to be associated with a terrible human like Sigurd, then sure... but to be honest, I think the fact that Norway scores so well when it comes to progress, living standards and human development, despite being one of the most unreligious nations in the world, is clearly a sign that God either rewards people who doesn't acknowledge him, or simply doesn't exist at all. My money is on the latter.
Zabiják Kuřat Nah, I am not a leftie. In fact, I think anyone who can identify themselves as either fully left or fully right are zombies without an opinion of their own. And by using the word "libtard", you come off as a stupid american. Is that really what you want from life?
Erik sure you are not, you are much more complex person who belives in various different ideas like progressivism or atheism, you know the leftie stuff
Zabiják Kuřat Atheism isn't "leftie stuff". Is not believing in Santa also "leftism"? Lack of religious belief is simply nothing, you are just not being religious.
