I can’t stop laughing Every time he calls it Out Rimmer

7:29 Just want to point out a lot of people still believe in holy lands today. I myself being one of those people. I can understand it not being as universal in today’s time as it is before but it’s still a fairly popular concept especially outside secular western countries.

7:52 I know that most of the Crusaders were third and fourth born sons, but there were a handful of eldest sons like Robert Curthose and Bohemond.

You say that Tripoli was where modern Jordan is now, but what about modern Lebanon?

I feel like I'm obligated to say this DEUS VULT

27:57 "I'm just gonna skip all the details... I don't think these things are all that important and that information is easily accessible at any rate..." Historians trying to piece together history from before the Great Nuclear Exchange 2000 years from now will not take kindly to that statement.

Outremer is Frrench for Oversea. Outre means Over and Mer means Sea

I went to catholic school my whole life and i can tellnyou that the crusades..when they are taught, do bring up the peasants crusade and all the mess associated with it and is fairly negative towards the crusaders in general.

Bro I love your narration. I've been listening all day!

I didn't know there was a crusading movement before the first crusade. I thought it was a novelty at the time

I have read thousands of highly intellectually regarded history books before there was any internet. You have a great knowledge and understanding. Books are not done yet.

John Lukacs distinguishes motives in History further into motives & purposes, the push of the past AND pull of the future; we necessarily cannot entirely enter INto the mind(s) of the past, but the differentiation of terms may be of use.

Outre may also be translated as Beyond

Great vid. Luv ur content. Your too underrated

Please do a video about the myth of chivalry! Please!!

What did you use as a source for all of this, and don't say Sir Stephen Runicman since his history is fifty years out of date.

I'd love to see a joint podcast between Thersites and Real Crusades History. They would bring very different points of view to the table, and if it stayed civil, it could be a great discussion/debate.

Baldwin of Eddessa became King of Jerusalem as his brother Godfrey was king before him, and the Baldwin who took his place in Eddessa was his cousin.

Lot of people really don't like what they're labelling "anti christian" bias in this video. I heard no anti Christian bias. I think what people are really complaining about is a lack of pro Christian hyperbole which has infested historiography for centuries. Well, may I suggest going to "Real Crusades History" on youtube and watch those videos. That channel is nothing more than a Catholic wetdream Crusading cheerleader site. Christians good, Islam bad...Jews in the way its their own fault. You complainers should really LIKE that channel. The bias in it is your own and is unapologetic.

Extra Credits has informed a lot of people of the Peasants Crusade. I actually want to learn more details of how Tancred captured Bethlehem. Extra Credits writes it off as a pretty random thing, but I know that Bethlehem is elevated higher then Jerusalem so it makes sense to secure it first. Tripoli is more like Lebanon then Jordan.

Superb. Am doing a presentation on ethics/motivations behind the First Crusade at the moment and this was the perfect video. Keep up the high quality and informative vids. Cheers.

4:15- Prime directive

This is absolutely horrible. You have only read one source and it's one that has been verified wrong for fifty years.

I'm curious, why do you think a Holy Land makes no sense?

Why is not liberate Jerusalem listed as crusader motive? I think you’re missing literally the most important one. Also, heirs did go. Some mortgaged their estates to go.

Holy shit an.honest to fuck historian - these are great videos.

Great video, but "Out-Rimmmer"? No, just no...

I love the First Crusade. It is however a fact that Alexius Komnemos GREATLY underestimated them - and without taking into account the fact that the Latin/Western Knights are loyal to the Pope(and not him or the Patriarch of Constantinople), or the fact that most of these guys(excluding the imbeciles from the peasants crusade who were neither trained to fight nor did they even have the right equipment to seriously fight battles against the muslim enemy) were HEAVILY trained and HEAVILY armed and armored warriors whove been trained since birth basically to be badass elite Knights; theres sooo many examples of tiny Crusader forces of like 1,000 men completely routing and then destroying Muslim armies of 40,000 men and this happened regularly. Thats how good of a warrior the elite Western Knights were; and above all they had the highest morale possible and didnt fear death. Alexius was an idiot if he thought that the Crusader Princes would have turned over the cities in Syria and further beyond(ESPECIALLY Jerusalem the holy city) to him. They recognized the Anatolian territories as Byzantine land; that was Byzantine land even within living memory. Its true that the entire East rightfully belonged to the Byzantines but; Alexius seemed quite content to just have Anatolia back. He tried to grasp at the territories in the levant after the Crusaders did the dirty work for him, but got turned down(and ended his help to the crusaders; that too, is one of Alexius' mistakes; he shouldve thought about it rationally for even a second that having a Christian neighbor state, even if its a Latin Christian state like all Crusader states were and were loyal to the Pope in Rome and the West as a whole, even then, having a Christian neighbor is WAAAAAAAY better(many many MANY times better and safer and more reliable) than having a Muslim neighbor(ESP a turkish muslim neighbor) on your doorstep who wants to take your lands and people from you like the Seljuks eventually did, and they only managed that because of how AWFUL the Byzantine Emperor's became after that traitorous jackass Andronicus Doukas betrayed the Emperor Romanus and basically destroyed most of the legitimacy of the Byzantine Emperor, not to mention devaluing the solidus and giving the Venetians a special tax exemption for trade(that was his biggest mistake of all considering that the Venetians were the ones that pushed the other crusaders later on in the fourth crusade to sack and take over Constantinople...those favors didnt mean jackshit to them...if he was gonna give the Venetians a tax exemption he shouldve done it like the old time Roman Emperors did it, when the Empire was still one not East and West; aka, giving a city and its inhabitants tax exemption for a lifetime at most(for around 50 years or so); that is NOT unprecedented and moreover it WONT lead to the collapse of the byzantine economy like an ALL-TIME free tax exemption for basically NOTHING in return). If Alexius wanted loyal Western Knights(and even in Ancient Roman sources, FAR before the byzantine empire was a thing, ALL the sources say that "The best soldiers can be recruited in the Western Provinces; and the most taxes and food can be collected from the Eastern Provinces" he shouldve remembered that, or had it taught to him if he didnt know it already) then Alexius, frankly, needed to go on campaign and fight in battle ALONGSIDE the Crusaders, for one; secondly he shouldnt have brought so many big name Crusading Princes to the East; I bet the regular Knights and heavily armed men-at-arms of the day would have naturally fallen into line if Alexius had been the only real Christian authority figure in the East, and also, if he had treated them even halfway decently. But Alexius for his part shut cities to the crusaders; he refused to supply them at many points; it was obvious to even the most common footsolder that Alexius was maliciously using the Latin Knights and would discard them the second they were no longer useful to him and his agenda, AT BEST, sent them back home with nothing to show for their troubles. That was Alexius' game, but it didnt pan out the way he wanted it to. He DID gain back the Anatolian provinces which is QUITE a feat though. To be honest if there was REAL MILITARY collaboration between the Byzantine forces(which were almost as elite as, or AS elite as, the Latin Knights from the West) and the Latin Knights, then I think ALL ancient Roman territory could have been regained and regained EASILY too; moreover I think they could have driven the Arabs back into Arabia; they could have driven off the savage Turks as well for once and all. But from the sources it makes it clear that Alexius distrusted and disliked the Latin Knights almost as much as he disliked the Muslim enemy. Which, considering things, I dont really blame him, but he REALLY had his priorities mixed up; and the reason for his dislike, the East-West schism of the Church, was FAAAAR less important than beating back the muslims who were the sworn and most vicious enemies of ALL Christians, they dont really care what denomination you are if you're Christian you can rest assured that the Muslims hate you and want to wrong you; not only today but ESPECIALLY back then when the islamic fervor was especially strong.

You sound a bit condescending in this video to say the least. Might wanna keep it in check.

If you need evidence watch “why we fear 1400 years of terror”

Good videos, even with it's leftist, anti-Christian slant

This has some errors

9:03 this is the most absurd theory that somehow never dies. The Holy Land is not large or particularly fertile. If you want to argue that the crusades were about expansion, you would have a much easier time focusing on the northern crusades. the motives came from Christian piety

Not all of Asia Minor lost to Seljuks.

Reclaim the holy land. Why? Devs vvlt.

Urban II: sup God? God: the cost of living. Urban II: I hear that!... BTW, I got some crusaders to whom I promised immortality.. God: what did they do to deserve immortality? Urban II: uh..the usual.. God: murder, rape, pillage, and plunder...? Urban II: yeah, som'n like that.. God: forget about it Urby!

Killing for God seems silly as God kills plenty without any help .

Crusader Motives #1: plunder

I think at this point it became obvious that the eastern Roman empire had truly lost its status, power and influence as an empire in Europe, perhaps the byzantine could be said to always have been a rump state of an empire but at this point any remnants of an empire have ended. It is interesting though that it seemed like Alexios was totally unaware of this, maybe out of ignorance, maybe it was arrogance/historical precedence or maybe he felt the need to keep up an image out of fear, especially later on. The arrival of the crusaders in Constantinople must have absolutely shocked him, it's a solid representation of the power of the Latin Papacy and Western Europe right before him, i think it must have contributed to his unwillingness to properly cooperate and assist the crusaders for fear of competition. I wonder though at what point in history did the ERM realise their decline?

All land is holy

Do we know at all whether local magnates in hock to Jewish moneylenders in the Rhineland in 1096 took advantage of peasantish credulity to "vacate" certain debts? This happened at intervals & I wonder if this was something like the first occasion, in Europe at any rate?

Still gonna thumbs up but just to rectify not to excuse because there was a lot of hatred towards non Christian , most of the pillaging was for food an money not to persecute jews specifically.

William Carrol is a better historian

People think AIDS is mainly spread by risky sexual behaviour, but it is in fact spread by Thersites' dreadful pronunciation.

Thersites the historian, while I find all of your presentations very well researched and thoughtfully summarized so as to give many key take-home pointers, your pronunciation of many foreign words needs a major re-think. Your Americanized pronunciation of these words grates and detracts against your clear credibility. Such a pity.

The peasants kind of had a point about who is to blame. Look who runs the banking system, government etc

this guy is a poor historian and even worse theologian. Folks in the middle ages did not think like 21st century millenials!!

Much better than FAKE Crusader History

Intermixed with well established facts are the presenter's snarky jabs at Christianity and the West. Listener beware; the presenter is not a professional.