finally, a cool fact about Brazil

Night Avenger Another cool fact is that a fish was elected president

The Templars also Fought the English in Scotland, and America was Discovered by Irish Monks way before any Westerner published anything on the lands

Is this true?

Mars there is some evidence, early American explorers described “fair, and familiar” people that had red hair, and other European features, as well as some Native American languages in the south east having seemingly Celtic lone words

I thought that was just another title for the Knights templar finished with the of Solomon

Hail emperor

Hail Caesar !

@@ocativenuzumaki6410 No, it was not. An entirely separate order. Sup guy from 3 years ago.

I was baptized and I just like Crusading.

Jesus isn’t the son of god

​​@@pissie9419Oh yes, He is!

Yep Vatican II ruined it.

@@pissie9419you are well named pissie.

Everyone who is European is likely related to a crusader because of how genes spread. You do realise the true faith of Europe isn;t even Christianity right? Christianity started out as an aggressive Jewish movement that advanced through the Roman Empire. Christianity historically was no better then Islam, they are only better now because Christianity is weak and it is being killed off by western culture whilst Islam continues to grow outside of western culture. Down with abrahamism!

Aidan Sumner I totally agree with you, it is exactly what I think. Download with abrahamism. Just not my stuff...

Aidan Sumner -Christians weren't aggressive until they put Christians in the Military, where being aggressive was their livelihood. It spread solely through birth and conversion until Constantine adopted it

Aidan Sumner-also Islam is growing INSIDE western culture as well

@@wes6363 Islam is actually declining in western cultures, most western born muslims are apostates and don't follow Islam to the extent of their parents much like modern day Christianity. With freedom of information we all grow without the constraints of blind faith in an old book yet form our lives to the mythologies of our anciestors.

Can't place that there, my lord!

@Mai T mooooore wood is needed

Yes!!

you prolly dont give a shit but if you are stoned like me during the covid times you can stream pretty much all of the new series on instaflixxer. Have been streaming with my gf for the last few months =)

@Anthony Drew Yea, I have been using Instaflixxer for months myself :D

For the grace, for the might of our Lord! For the home of the Holy!

For the faith, for the way of the sword gave their lives so boldly

For the grace, for the might of our Lord! In the name of His glory!

For the faith, for the way of the sword, come and tell their stories again! Say will you stand up for Christ and combat?

Jack Ride, defend, the kingdom of god alive in the conquest of Normans Crossed the land, to Byzantine shores we storm Constantinople's walls Gone ahead, the army went on arrived at the river of Jordan Brave the dread, Jerusalem's sons and one-by-one the pilgrims fall

The history channel unfortunately still follow the 1853 lie that "evil Christian kings wanted peaceful muslim lands". Proof that revisionist historians should be burnt at the stake.

Richard Quinones-I would put the golden age of the west in the late 1300s, just after the black death, because after that, technology SOARED in a matter of decades. If you were born in 1330, it wouldn't look much different from 1190, but assuming you survived the plague and lived to be about 60, the world looked completely different.

Hail, brother in Christ.

As a Catholic as well, I like learning, but I kinda resent when he suggests it’s stupid to believe the stories of miracles, especially for medieval peoples who wouldn’t have been able to look into their veracity with official sources. Records were not as good back then, and legends were taken as fact by the general populous. It wasn’t stupid of them to do so, that’s the knowledge they had on hand. I guess as a Catholic especially, I feel it betrays a sort of bias when people trying to portray themselves as completely objective try to say that any miracle is stupid to believe in. The smartest men in history believed in miracles. Frankly, I think those that don’t believe in miracles are often blinded by their own faith in what they think they can know, when we cannot know all. Honestly, it’s why it irks me whenever someone like this says they won’t disclose their religious views, as if that makes them objective. To me that does the opposite. You will always have a bias, and frankly it can often be figured out by looking at what you say. Looking into biases of certain historical documents is a key part of discerning what we can trust from various documents. We see how much their bias may impact their version of events. Why is that not also the standard for those who relay this information. Idk definitively what Metatron’s views are, but I’d be willing to guess he’s not very religious, if at all. That’s useful to note, as it helps see your bias. It always feels like many atheists or agnostics think that a lack of belief is objective and unbiased, and thus feel no need to explain the lens’s through which they say things. Well, like it or not, that’s a bias. That’s a side you’re taking. It’s gonna impact how you view things depending on whether you share some sympathies with who you’re talking about, or if you think their reasons, or even the premises surrounding those reasons, we’re utter garbage. Transparency is a much better way to relay information, rather than acting like you’re some wholly unbiased observer who simply wants to “relay the facts”. How you relay them, and which facts you relay will be impacted, whether consciously or not.

@@Brother_Piner God is the infinite and eternal being, He is the very essence of existence itself. So, if someone ever argues against you that science proves God is not real, then tell them that that's impossible, because God can not be measured or observed in the ways of our scientific methods. Science can neither proof or disprove God and that's why faith is a thing. The fact that mankind has objective morality is a good way of arguing for God's existence and another great way of arguing for God's existence is the fact that life, as we know it, would not have been if the course of the universe had been different at any given point over all of those 14 billion years. Over those 14 billion years whatever it is that happened, it had to happen that specific way for us to be able to be here and what are the odds that that's all because of random reactions? The odds would be terribly low. Miracles are God's direct intervention in the physical world, so it's only logical that they seem to defy our natural laws. An infinite being outside the spatial and temporal dimensions is not constrained by those dimensions and if that being directly interacts in those dimensions, then it seems to us as magic, unreal or impossible.

@@wulfheort8021 faith is a thing because people are scared of their own and others mortality. Morality exists because people genererally dont want to die. Religions are just an indoctrination and coping mechanism. Science has proven so much that it is very unlikely that god exists, but even if, its not gonna be your god. But hey, at least you dont believe that the world is 6000 years old :)

Brother Peter Dimond does a better job going over the first crusade. Especially, from the Catholic perspective. Though, the fire that came from the sky and struck the Muslims without explanation still bothers me.

I'm glad to hear that :)

Yeah, the crusades were a response to Islamic aggression. Islamic forces kept trying to push up into Europe.

Jeff K europe had already pushed into the middle east 100s of years before Islam.

+Flying Axblade I saw the video. It's a joke. He literally counts every battle ever fought by a Muslim power as a "Jihad" the way he uses the number of battles to determine how "bad" something was is laughable. /r/badhistory gave a review for the whole documentary: www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1ocyxr/review_why_we_are_afraid_a_1400_year_secret_by_dr/ Btw, before someone says "but he has a PhD, surely he knows something about this sort of thing" do note that his PhD is in *physics.* He's no more a professional historian than I am.

Yeah, wasn't Europe great when it was like an Islamic state, but for Christians?

Europe was no difference with ISIS under the Catholic Church

Also "God's Battalions" by Rodney Stark is great as well.

Also "The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading." Also by Riley-Smith, really well written and researched. I could also recommend "The Templars" by Pierce Paul Reed.

How enjoyable is it to read? Is it pretty easy reading or is it tedious , full of so many details that the reader gets bogged down in them?

Very helpful, thanks

@@majorgear1021 I enjoyed those books a lot, personally. The First Crusade book mostly has details and references to medieval texts. The Templars book tells the narrative of the crusades in the Holy Land and the participation of the Templars.

Jack, d'ya recommend these books? They seem very interesting.

I need to know something about you: What are you hoping to learn? Sagas and Icelandic books? Vikings? All Scandinavians? Mythology? Vikings: Raids, Culture, Legacy is a great book, whose purchase I don't regret. I'll give you the table of contents: Chapter 1 *Origins of the Scandinavian Nations* Starts page 8 Chapter 2 *Exploration* Starts page 20 Chapter 3 *Raiding and Trading* Starts page 42 Chapter 4 *Settlement Abroad* Starts page 66 Chapter 5 *Everyday Life* Starts page 88 Chapter 6 *The End of The Viking Age* Starts page 112 Chapter 7 *The Viking Legacy* Starts page 120 It's a rather short book, but that's because of how compact it is. It's very concise and lists numerable useful facts. All of the facts listed in the book I have found in other credible sources, and I actually disagree with nothing listed in the book, which I recall. I'd say it's a great reference material when studying these things. It's got a good amount of pictures and a suitable amount of information about said pictures. It's written by Marjolein Stern & Roderick Dale, and I forget the price of it. It's 131 pages long. In terms of sagas and Icelandic books, I'd say it wouldn't be your *_first_* choice, but they do throw nice bonuses into the chapters about these things. In terms of Vikings, it's a really incredible book, and I would recommend it. With regards to all Scandinavians, it's, once again, considerably above average. For Mythology, I would sooner recommend the book *_The Viking Spirit: An Introduction to Norse Mythology and Religion,_* because that book is fantastic for mythology. You can tell me if there's a chapter you'd like to hear more about and I'll give you a paragraph or two just to see if you're interested, by the way. Overall, it's a great book, and I'd recommend it. If you haven't read a saga yet, I recommend you first read _The Saga of the Volsungs_ by Dr. Jackson Crawford, just to get a feel for what a saga is. He does also include the Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok (who's second wife is the daughter of Sigurd in the Volsunga Saga), so there's a bonus. Also, the Volsunga Saga is a very famous saga, and a very good one. I've read two different short versions of it once each, and two different full versions of it once. Recently, it's become my favorite book. If you want more information on that, just let me know. If you want to see what the Volsunga Saga is about, Jackson Crawford (yes, the same one) has KZfaq videos about it. He doesn't add a whole lot of emotion to his videos (unlike in his book), but still, if you want to test it out, I'd recommend watching the first video or two. Onto the book in question, though. I haven't finished _The Sagas of Icelanders,_ yet, but I'm loving it so far. It is by Penguin Classics, which is a publisher that either hits or misses, and I see this book as a bulls-eye, so far. It has something like 66 pages of introduction, all of which I found extremely interesting. I'm only, something like, 150 pages in, including the introduction, so I haven't even finished the first saga (Egils Saga), but I'm really enjoying it so far. It's about 758 pages long, by the way. Here's a brief table of contents: *Introduction* Page 15 - 66 It pretty much introduces you to Icelandic sagas, but I would still recommend the Saga of the Volsungs, as it's enticing, a great book to say you've read, and will introduce you to sagas. Anyway, the introduction also tells you about the settlement of Iceland, the political system of Iceland, how the Norse "duty-of-revenge" system worked, and more. As for the sagas included in the book, you can look them up on Wikipedia to get a brief synopsis. *_ALSO!_* Another reason I, again, recommend reading the Saga of the Volsungs, first, is because of how sagas work. With books nowadays, the main character is introduced in the first page, and if the main character dies then the book ends. *_That's not how sagas work._* They often start you off with the great-grandfather and great-grandmother of the main character, who they were, some things they did, who the King was at the time, and more. When the main character of Egils Saga, Egil, was born on page, like, 55, I rejoiced. Not to say the first 54 pages were bland (they *_absolutely_* were not), but I was happy to get to learn about the guy the book was about. One more thing: before they actually start telling the saga, they give one or two pages about when the saga took place, where certain parts of it happened, and a very brief summary of the main character's or characters' description. One last thing: You can look up Jackson Crawford's videos on KZfaq to learn how to pronounce the names and whatnot. So here's the list of Sagas: *Egils Saga* Page 3 *The Saga of the People of Vatnsdal* Page 185 *The Saga of the People of Laxardal* Page 270 *Bolli Bollason's Tale* Page 422 *The Saga of Hrafnkel Frey's Godi* Page 436 *The Saga of the Confederates* Page 463 *Gisli Sursson's Saga* Page 496 *The Saga of Gunlaug Serpent-Tongue* Page 558 *The Saga of Ref the Sly* Page 595 *The Vinland Sagas* Page 626 *The Saga of the Greenlanders* Page 636 *Eirik the Red's Saga* Page 653 Tales: *The Tale of Thorstein Staff-struck* Page 677 *The Tale of Halldor Snorrason II* Page 685 *The Tale of Sarcastic Halli* Page 694 *The Tale of Thorstein Shiver* Page 713 *The Tale of Audun from the West Fjords* Page 717 *The Tale of the Story-wise Icelander* Page 723 Reference Section (you would *_definitely_* want to read this) *Illustrations and Diagrams* Page 730 *Ships* Page 730 *The Farm* Page 733 *Social and Political Structure* Page 735 *Glossary* Page 741 *Index of Characters* Page 759 FYI, there are 22 1/2 pages for the index of characters section. Keep in mind there are two columns of character names, per page, and it's written at like size 7 font. Here's a website I suggest checking out, if you're interested in Norse Mythology. This is where I found the book, because he also has a Viking section of the website, and a page titled "The 10 Best Books on the Vikings." norse-mythology.org/10-best-books-vikings/ You can get a paperback copy of this book for not even U.S $20, on Amazon. A Kindle version if $9.

:D Beat ya to it FlyingAxblade (nice name xD). Hurstwic is the 3rd bookmark in my Vikings Tab :P

I don't know if this information helps but I believe that there was at least some contact between Scandinavian vikings and the Byzantines between 850-1200. Some of the vikings became personal guards of the Byzantine emperors therefore some kind of technological exchange might have occurred, the degree of which I do not know

+Jack Are you talking about the Ulfberht sword? they were able to bend up to 3o degrees and not snap or splinter. Very expensive swords. And there were "rip -off " blades like today`s "Gucci bag`s" ya know,knock offs.

Grazie mille

Ugh, disgusting

Redman A There's nothing "Disgusting" about liberating the Holy Land from the Saracens

Adrian Owen IS is not in the holy land.

Ninjaananas It IS the Holy Land

Adrian Owen The islamic state is the Holy Land? Are you sure about that?

Glad to hear that :)

As they most definitely were the Reconqustia was the main reason that the Crusades even started it also didn't help that Muslims enslaved alot of Europeans

I didn't appreciate the lack of the reason for the crusades. No mention of 452 years of unprovoked genocidal islamic aggression against Christians.

Metatron approved dinner

DEUS VULT!

DEUS VULT!!

Waiter: What are you going to take gentelmen? Crusaders : WE ARE GOING TO TAKE JERUSALEM!!!!!!!!!!!!

DEUS VULT!!

T.Knotto Deus Vult

Alone? Maybe he should ask Yarrick for help.

take it easy on that lirium tho

Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Russia was attacked by the christians during the crusades, while parts in Germany (Saxony) and Sweden (Gotland) was converted into christianity by forcing the population to either change their faith or die.

nattygsbord And what's your point? I was stating that I feel that both sides were gray as they had understandable motivations amongst other things such as the fact that they both have committed questionable acts. I already know that the Christian side had done not-very-nice things.

I say that not only muslims were into military expansionism. But christians were equally interested in playing that game. And perhaps everyone was interested in playing this game during the dark ages, but the heathens in Eastern Europe did lack the military technology to subjugate the christian countries. Maybe Finland could have conquered Sweden instead of the other way around so to say.

nattygsbord Okay, but why are you telling me this? I don't recall stating any preferences of either side. I simply stated that I felt that this was a gray matter.

Okay :) I just first thought that you were a little bit too kind to the christians in comparison to the muslims. But I see that you got the picture correctly. Everyone was bad back then. And the mongols and the arabs were perhaps some of the worst.. but others were no angels either

Ben Walters no gold sire.

Your popularity, is rising!

This armour's heavy!

Ben Walters We need wood me lord

ARCHERS, READY!

I'm glad to hear that!

Nobody believes that, and even if they did why do you care?

Fuzzy Dunlop because there is an actual "trans" crusade against those who oppose this idea. In Canada, you can lose your job, be fined and put to jail just by saying that you disagree with gender fluidity and refuse to use made up pronouns. Why do I care ? Because when I see bs and it's being shoved in my throat, I kind of mind.

Fuzzy Dunlop so much worthless shittalk where much of it is just bullshit. Nobody is forcing any dogma? Right, that's why nazi shithole called lgbt community is destroying people's life just for opposing them. For example, firing from job, accusing for ridiciolous amounts of compensation or harasing in the internet, like this girl who was drawing steven universe fanarts

@ Fuzzy Dunlop - "Nobody's forcing you to adopt some fucking dogma"....You are completely uneducated on the current gender debate, you can now be fined, or yes fired for not using someone's made up pro-nouns, and yes you can look up lists of recognized genders from some universities and find over 80. In Canada this is already happening, in Canada it is now sexual/hate crime to use the wrong pro-noun. Reign in all the salt you're throwing around and educate yourself on what is happening.

Fuzzy Dunlop Please search out Jordan Peterson and Lindsey Sheppard, everything about what you said is absolutely false. Wake up man (or I should I say zeir)...

They were liberators....well, the first crusaders at least.

I'm glad you liked it :) I specifically told them I would have personalized it and they said it was ok

Stronghold 1 :D

I'm glad to hear that :)

Errrm, Constantinople did not fall during the time the crusades were called

Most historians agree that the idea of doing a crusade appeared after the sermon preached by Pope Urban II at Clermont-Ferrand, which was a call to arms to take back the holy land. He promised forgiveness and pardon for all of the past sins of those who would fight to reclaim the holy land from Muslims and free the eastern churches, as well as the retaking of Jerusalem. His primary reason however was responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who had been defeated by Turkish forces, this is evidenced by the first target of the first campaign, Nicaea, which had been taken from the byzantine empire. Your theory isn't wrong, it isn't right either. It certainly was one of the many reasons of the first crusade, and it's better to know about it then not. Also Jerusalem was taken by Atsiz ibn Uwaq, a mercenary under the Seljuk Turks, and the pilgrimage to Jerusalam became much harder especially after they crushed a revolt in 1077. They were sunni muslim for the most part however. As for the claim of them destroying christian sanctuaries? Possible, I haven't looked into it, they most likely did.

Where do I sign up?

I'd like to see you try.

Thats never gonna happen

thats gonna be Roma Inshallah

I'm glad to hear that :) and welcome to the commuity of the noble ones

Metatron i appreciate the reply man, thanks for the quality content :)

Ahah ye :D

Krzemo no wood m'lord

The Metatron is the source used by all others.

Yay witcher

Accept my word, and you will be an infidel no more!

What? This is a historical based video not a political debate, I dont recall him saying "im an atheist left-wing"

@@kastriotkrasniqi7118 I think Mr. Helm is trying to point out the personal narrative consists of doubt and likewise Metatron is dismissive of religious faith as a motivator because people 'weren't stupid.' Thus implying if you believed you were following God's will you were indeed stupid. Which is a very modern and atheisty perspective.

@@Shatnerpossum Alternatively he thought they'd doubt a call to crusade from remembering the somewhat more pacifist passages in the Bible (Depending on how the priests would translate the Thou shalt not kill/murder commandment in the homily which was usually the only part of mass in the common tongue.Though some nobles probably knew at least a little ecclesiastical latin.)

@@DIEGhostfish I am skeptical that the hardcore pacifist interpretation common now is going to trump the Pope's instructions at the time. I think that was atheism slipping through and the modern view that people are either stupid or skeptical.

The Unusual Stranger as a Muslim myself, I couldn't agree more.

Dread Wolf and yet, non religious people have committed some of the worst atrocities in mankind's history. Blaming religion is like blaming guns for killing people.

I guess the crusades have to be understood by the individual perspective since everyone had their own personal motivation to go to war. There was no strong single motivating factor that united the west against islam. Some were pragmatic Kings who could make compromises with the muslims (Friedrich II) and many of those kings also understood the military/economical/political realities better than fanatical peasant rabble. For example, conquering the rich Egypt was necessary for having any propects of being able to hold Jerusalem after the city had been taken. But fanatical peasants and many knights opposed the idea because they had not all the long way from Europe just so a King could expand his own power by taking Egypt. They were fighting for Jerusalem, and thereby getting the forgivness for all their sins by the pope. They just wanted to take Jerusalem and they didn't care if the christians would be unable to hold the city once it had been taken. Fighting in the middle east was expensive so many knights wanted to take the city and then just go home.... and that in turn made the holy land too weakly defended against a muslim invasion.. so sooner or later another crusade then had to be launched, but that's another story... Many wanted to save their souls. Kings wanted to improve their prestige. Some Christians were afraid of the muslim expansion and wanted to help unifying christendom by helping defending Byzantium. Some knights left home for the holy land because of dynastical reasons. And some warm Christians genuinly felt that taking back Jerusalem was a worthy cause. And some peasants just left Europe because poverty and starvation. And the crusades in North-Eastern Europe was basicly at first just old-school viking raids called wars for christ as a nice marketing trick. And converting heathens to christianity by the sword was seen as a nice altruistic project that made the crusaders feel good about themselves - because thereby God got more followers and got happy, and the heathens souls would be saved from the hellfire they thought. And killing a non-believer was not an act of hate, but an act of love according to wicked medieval crusaders.... because if you killed a sinner before he could commit even more sins, then you would save his soul from burning an even longer time inside the hellfire.

In what way were they deceived by Pope Urban II?

Solid Snek are you seriously pretending that this wasnt something normal and People did it because it gave them Money and not but because they had Another Religion?

First

🙄Did you mean "madre"?😉

I knew I'll find a man of culture! 😂

Laughs in Slavic

Cries in German

Payback is a bitch huh. Though i think Kaliningrad Oblast should be taken away from the Russians.. They have no right to it.

Neues, That sounds like a Deus vult moment to me

Well hey that's what crusades are all about

The so called Muslim invasion to Europe is actually liberation movement, to free Middle East from the Romans. Crusade is just Roman Pope want their former territories back.

I've seen mental gymnastics, but this is a whole new level. Anyone who does any research knows this was unprovoked conquests followed by mass enslavement and killings, permanently destroying civilizations and peoples who had existed since prehistoric times. Seriously, you should feel bad about making up an excuse that half-assed. The Byzantines weren't even friendly with the pope. My ancestors didn't fight muslim occupation on behalf of a fallen empire you twat.

You call my work pathetic, and yet you fail to understand I have already made a few videos on the crusades and the crusaders, and I have mentioned the Islamic menace in the previous one. If you don't believe me check out the video about the templars. You are not a content creator, so you don't understand that after you make almost 700 videos you can't repeat yourself in each single video in fear of someone calling your work pathetic because you left out something. This one had a different approach and focused on different aspects.

Link? And the Islamic threat isn't exactly a secondary topic in the crusades, so don't get surprised when I and others bring this up.

Large part of Middle East were Roman and Byzantium provinces, Islamic Arab rising is a liberation movement, to free Middle East from western power. To add, Byzantium and Persian have so long at war, it tire up the Arabs, so Islam give hope to the Arabs to be free from foreign power. If you really study history then you know Christian Orthodox of the ARABS help Muslim conquests because they too want to be free from western power.

Dmitri Patronov yes they had some but not many Muslim knights they have

Dmitri Patronov what I mean by that is Turkish knights Turks had Muslim Knights even my picture is one

Dmitri Patronov Turkey is just in Europe Middle East and Asia in Istanbul they had Turkish knights also known as Uygher Türkler and watch dombra Turkish song they will show you some Turkish knights on a horse with two swords and a helmet that is a Islamic great helmet it’s just sugar loaf

Dmitri Patronov you’re right but the European Turkish knights have a chance to win against a Christian knight

Dmitri Patronov what I mean Turks had Islamic knights ok kapish