Could not resist. Purchased your novel. Will make great Christmas reading. Been to Spain and Portugal and visited many medieval castles. Very familiar with Christian liberation of Moors throughout the I reían peninsula. Fascinating stuff. Thanks!!
Your videos are a treasure. The best part is your academic integrity and scholarship. Using primary sources is a complete rarity today and allows the viewer to make honest assessments as to the voracity of the truth of a situation. Although you do bring in other points of view of other historians you still leave what actually happened open. That shows honesty and integrity, thanks!
I think one of the reason for the difference in between the treatment at Antioch and Edessa you mentioned was the supply situation of the crusaders. I mean at Antioch the area around and the city supplies were depleted so feeding the captives would be very hard. While at Edessa the situation was not as dire, supply wise so they could afford to keep them alive.
des .>But there were some Welshmen on the Third Crusade. One of them, a man called Marcaduc, engaged in a test of skill with an enemy archer at the siege of Tyre. The skill was archery, something for which the men of South Wales were particularly famed. Unsurprisingly Marcaduc won the test and killed his Saracen challenger. Clearly the Welsh had a significant military skill to contribute to the crusading armies.
From your research have you ever encountered a story of a truce between Muslim and Christian, such as a Muslim soldier saving a Christian soldiers life therefore the Christian demands protection for the Muslim saving his life and or vice versa ?
jonathan piccone Truces were very common, but for political reasons. The only thing I can think of like that is a story in usama ibn munqidh. He describes a story in which he was in Jerusalem with a frank whom he considered a friend, when a Frankish woman approached him claiming he had killed her husband. This attracted a crowd of franks who wanted to kill usama, but usama's Frankish friend convinced the woman she was mistaken, thereby saving his life. I think I'll make a video on that it's quite interesting.
Real Crusades History , for sure man you have great Intel . By the way I came across a channel you would like . ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EszwYNvvCjQ.html , this channel has allot of stuff you may like . This video describes how people used to walk during medieval times. It makes sense since people's foot posture in paintings were mostly toes forward check it out let me know what you think .
I always appreciate this channel and your work! YOU ROCK! Shame that historical revisionist/Marxist channels get millions more views than you but we greatly treasure your work - and God sees it, too.
Not many know that the original cross of Christ was burnt by Sallahuddin (Salladin) by being held upside down. Not many know that Salladin had a jewish close friend Mamonaides.
You know that the original cross was made out of wood 11 centuries before Saladin, right ? There is no way it could survive and it is not very hard to make a cross
Hi J. Stephen, this is great and thanks, however ".. did them no evil but drove lances into their bellies .." is probably a euphemism for sex. A medieval lance was 12-14 feet long and murdering captives is probably close up work in a pre-industrial society. If you want to make the assumption Fulcher was being alliterative about the mechanics of killing you have many many questions to answer. All in all great work and thanks for this.
That's what I first thought, but the phrase "did them no evil" is obviously referring to rape. So I definitely agree that it was fulcher being alliterative and not a euphemism for sex.
Are you sure "did them no evil" didnt mean that they didn't kill them? And maybe when he says "drove lances in their bellies" that was a figure of speech for their tiny lance?? Just curious. I didnt know how much writers engaged in witty language back then, or is that far fetched?
That's an interesting possibility. The historians I've seen commenting on that passage seem to think that he's talking about literally using actual lances, but that would be an interesting question to explore further.
@Anita McGuire I was thinking along those lines. I really wasnt sure how much riske' humor would have been part of the chronicle in those days. I was thinking surely "did them no evil" would have included murder which was after all a commandment. And also "driving lances into their bellies" seems a pretty obvious quip if a writer wanted to put out the rapey innuendo. However a serious and pious source may not have been able to put something like that out about his soldiers of God. But like you, I dont claim to be an expert. Just like thinking about things and and piecing things together.
Hah! "Did them no evil!" The good news is that I already understand what christians and Muslims thought was their right and what was completely unacceptable. Funny thing though, a lot of men back then (yes even Christian men) felt that the spoils of war was rightfully theirs, that included women. A lot of lords throughout time, yes during the crusades, took mistresses, concubines, and female slaves that they assigned to their wives or what might be considered women's work more or less to have them close enough to enjoy as they liked, regardless of what the church said was right.
Men remain men regardless of religion.But one only has to look at the rights that Christian civilization provided to women to know that the treatment that Christians gave was much better than that of Muslims.
Is it better than treating Muslims in any way? Do you mean in terms of the saturations in the two religions? Or do you mean in terms of societal treatment? I hope your reasons are convincing@@brendabrenda6782
In the old testament what did armies do with women and virgins. Why are so many mixed race children abandoned in Africa, Vietnam and all over the world even today.
If you are asking sincerely, the O.T. is pretty straightforward… men, women, children and even their animals, were “put to the sword.” YHWH made it very clear that the Israelites were not to plunder or pillage the cities they conquered when conquering the Holy Land. The cities were “Dedicated to God” which means that they were not to profit from the conquest other than the land itself.
There are multiple instances of polygamy and concubinage in the bible, maybe it was practiced less yes but polygamy had a good grounding in the bible too
@@QualityPen I did not say they put it there. When i say 'defend' it, I mean they practice (d) it and defend their practice of it by saying it is in the bible and if God condoned it then, he can do that now. (According to their "continuing revelation") But yes, this person was just pointing it out and I just assumed that he/she was Mormon and i just wanted to clarify. God bless.
Interestingly, whilst instances of biblical characters engaging in polygamy and concubinage are described in the bible, it is rarely portrayed as a healthy state of being. Again and again, old testament figures who chose to incorporate polygamy into their lives are depicted as consequently bringing division, grief, jealousy and violence into their households.
Dan Robinson Right. King Solomon had 1000 wives. The Bible says that his wives had a corrupting influence in that they stole his heart from the true God to idols.
You see who you let into your countries? people who carry a religion that enables humiliation and rape of none muslim women, Then you wonder why rape reports are skyrocketing when you have influx of muslim immigrants lol...
But not among the Crusaders. Stop projecting stupidly from the postmodern times on the time of the Crusades. Go learn before coming to write laughable foolishness that only betrays your ignorance and stupidity. How pathetic
Is it possible for future videos to cite the sources in the description if you haven't done so already. I'm terrible at spelling names and have no clue how to spell Muslim names and are trying to use google but to no avail. I love your video's and glad you're taking this on. It has been truly helpful. 🤎
Sure thing. Check out Arab Historians of the Crusades, Fulcher of Chartres, Ibn al-Qalanisi, Ibn al-Athir, and I think Usama ibn-Munqidh is also in this one. Also you can look at William of Tyre, Albert of Aachen, and there's a collection of First Crusade sources edited by Edward Peters called the First Crusader: Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Material.
