Great video

Well said. I really enjoy the balancing of sources to provide a clearer and more accurate insight.

The Battle of the FIELD of BLOOD,1119. Very Awesome job on this & all of your videos, which have educated some of my friends & family ass well as myself.

Very informative, once again.

Great video!

good video, you should do a video on the whole De Hauteville family, as several of the main protagonists in this video are from that great and largely forgotten family, a real rags to riches story

Battle of the Field of Blood...cool name for a battle - evocative! Really interesting video too.

Sin weakens a person's will and darkens his mind/reason/understanding. Thus, sin is the primary cause of particular failures of Crusading efforts. A mind darkened by sins committed off the battlefield will make errors and ommissions on the battlefield. King David never won another battle after his adultery with Bathsheba and the killing of her husband, the Hittite General. These history lessons are fabulous. They set the record straight, and help us to not fall prey to the Catholic history bashing that is so popular. Thanks for educating us.

Where can I find the picture of this knight? Artist/title of the picture?

We want something on Teutonic Order! Show us true crusader spirit!

Great.

A shame you don't seem to utilise the evidence of Walter the Chancellor, the Antiochene eyewitness to Ager Sanguinis and author, or the various works of Thomas Asbridge on the battle and its causes/effects for the principality. Also, Roger was not regent, it is now accepted that he was prince (he used the title 'princeps' in his charters, he had full control of the principality etc.). The question does remain how he may have interacted with Bohemond II if he had survived long enough to see the young prince's arrival, but there is no evidence that Roger's powers were in any way limited or different to those of Bohemond I, Tancred or the rulers who came after him. I might also doubt whether Ager Sanguinis was the result of a unified Muslim response to Baldwin I's death, as Islamic Syria was anything but united at this time. Il-Ghazi was trying to bring groups together but this was hardly secure. It seems most likely that Ager Sanguinis reflected a desire to push back the border zone between Antioch and Aleppo to the Belus Hills (around Harim/Artah) and not to actually try and capture Antioch. The principality may have been weakened, but to capture the city of Antioch itself was no mean feat (Zengi, Nur al-Din and Saladin all failed in this), and also - if we are to follow Michael Kohler's research on Muslim Syria - it is highly unlikely that the tense union of Islamic polities would have allowed Il-Ghazi to capture it because it would have given him too much influence. You also have to factor in that the loss of Antioch would have brought a response from the West and even perhaps Byzantium (and the Muslim rulers would have known this). There was little to gain from actually capturing Antioch at this point, but to destabilise the eastern frontier allowed for greater security in Aleppo and promised to increase Il-Ghazi's influence there by showing his position as protector.

700 was the official registry of nights tasked with the defense of anthiok, the rest were turk poles on light cavalry , and infantry

It's not just Christianity. Even the Northern Pagans hated the Muslims.