History Channel Crusades: Crescent & the Cross | Amazing Documentary

History Channel – Crusades: Crescent & the Cross | Amazing Documentary Subscribe: .

History Channel – Crusades: Crescent & the Cross | Amazing Documentary History Channel – Crusades: Crescent & the Cross | Amazing Documentary History .

History Channel Documentary — Crusades – Crescent & the Cross.

The First Crusade was the most successful from a military point of view. Accounts of this action are shocking. For example, historian Raymond of Agiles . Part 2 of .

(Visited 16 times, 1 visits today)

You might be interested in

Comment (0)

  1. Gotta love how this documentary completely ignores centuries of aggression and the conquest of parts of Europe under the Rashedun, Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates long before there was even a first crusade. They just start this piece of shit off with " one day the Christians decided to take Jerusalem cuz pope Urban said" gimme me a break. I'm not saying the Christians have spotless reputations (children's crusade 1212 etc) but as with anything or anyone living near the borders of islam , islam definitely started it. It's laughable how the morons that practice this crap ( islam) are always crying about how their faith is being attacked (that usually just means they've encountered some resistance to their aggression). Also the time line is incorrect as popes were calling for the reconquering of territory claimed by the Ottomans and handing out dispensations into the 16 -17 century (the definition of a crusade). Yeah, nothing like a bit of revisionism.

  2. Were the Crusades a Defensive Conflict?
    When critics of Christianity list the sins committed by Christians throughout history, invariably they will mention the Crusades to the recover Jerusalem from the Muslims and the conquest of Muslim lands in the Levant from the 11th through the 13th centuries.

    Some Christian apologists will counter that the Crusades to retake the "Holy Land", such as Robert Spencer in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), were in actuality defensive conflicts. The reasoning employed by Spencer and others is that the Crusades were a counter-offensive to recover land that was taken by the Muslims from the Christians during the 7th century.

    This reasoning fails on a number of levels. If one wants to be technical about it, the lands of Palestine, Syria, and Egypt were provinces of the Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Empire before they were conquered by the Arab Muslims. The reason why the Muslims were able to take Jerusalem and the "Holy Land" is because the Byzantines and the Persians had beat each other to a bloody pulp like two heavyweight boxers only a few years earlier and were too weakened to resist. Their treasuries depleted, neither of the two regional superpowers of the day were able to continue paying their respective Arab client states, so they threw in their lots with their kindred Arabs. Thus, the Byzantines and the Persians lost their valuable buffer states. For the Byzantines, the situation was further aggravated due to the fact that their attempts to impose their brand of orthodoxy on their fellow Christians in the Near East were not welcomed by the latter. The Muslims, on the other hand, did not care what kind of Christianity their subjects practiced, as long as they paid their taxes.

    If the Crusades were really a counter-offensive, then ideally the lands recovered by the Crusaders should have been returned to their previous Christian rulers, the Byzantines. Problem was, the Byzantines were Eastern Orthodox, whereas the Crusaders were Catholics whose religious allegiance was to the pope in Rome. And the two churches had formally split in the Great Schism of 1054.

    The truth is, the Crusades to recover and hold Jerusalem were not about fighting a Muslim threat. Instead, they were carried out for entirely different purposes. For the popes, the Crusades were a great way to get the Christian powers of Western Europe to stop fighting each other and to instead channel their aggression to fight a far off enemy that posed no threat to them. The popes also had in mind to expand their hold over Christendom by forcing the militarily weakened Byzantines to accept the supremacy of the Catholic Church.

    If the Crusaders were really serious about engaging in a counter-offensive against the Muslims, the logical first step would have been to assist the Byzantines in expelling the Muslims from Asia Minor. In fact, it was the Byzantine request for aid to recover territory in Asia Minor from the Seljuk Turks that served as the catalyst for the Crusades. As long as the Anatolian heartland remained in Muslim hands, the security of the Crusaders states in the Levant could not be maintained for long. While relations between the Byzantines and the Crusaders were frosty at best, the humiliating Byzantine defeat at Myriokephalon in 1176 confirmed the permanent presence of Islam in Asia Minor and deepened the isolation of the Crusader states. So much then for the Crusades being a counter-offensive against Muslim aggression.

  3. everyone who is arguing or debating just stop. At the end of the day Christians moved forward and became more civilized. however muslims in the middle east are still beheading people and torturing people like barbaric animals. Not saying they are all like that but there is a reason why people feel way more safe living in america then they do in other parts of the world. And i dont want to here a bunch of that bullshit about "Well the reason its like that in arab countries is because of america" No bitch its not. Take responsibility for your actions and for your country. If a country wanted to work hard and get shit done they would. No one is stopping your country from being a peaceful and opportunistic one. And for all those Muslims or Indians and etc who live in this country and hate it then stop complaining and go back to your country if its so nice.

  4. Christianity, just another religion of peace if you give up your God for theirs, your opinions, your education, your money, your life, your time, your freedom of speech, your own thoughts, and some more things. If not then be prepared to be attacked verbally, physically, shunned, lied about, murdered, invaded, tortured, and your family being attacked for association. I've only met one true and pure Christian, the rest are violent barbarians that hate and want blood for their ignorance.

  5. Conclusion: And then came Darwin….who showed that all these religious motherfuckers wasted their life fighting for an imaginary creature hahahah…….Fuk crusaders and jihadis…Hail Science!

  6. the crusades were fucken stupid no religion is any better then the other and all religion is bullshit anyway when I see evidence that god of any religion had ever existed then ill shut my mouth some people are stupid enough to believe in an imaginary god but makes no difference to me anytime  bunch of holy people want to kill each other im a happy guy hahahah I think religion is funny but stupid people will believe anything how sad how very very sad

  7. For the ignorant bunch of you in the comment section this is not really a biased documentary, it displays neither the christians nor the muslims as the "right" side. And why do you need someone to tell you who is right and wrong anyway? You should be able to judge who was more idealistic based on their actions. They were both war driven cultures that fought each other because of their different beliefs. End of story.

  8. The funny thing is that people actually think this is about a small piece of land they don't not even care about today. Amazing how they control peoples minds the holy lands is not what we think they would not fight so hard and give it to the Jews and name it Israel in 1948 when it was founded before that it was Palestine and before that it was not ever called Israel its was called colonial aelia capitolina. where was Israel before that. Read crusades land of milk in honey there trip was not short it took them a lot longer then it should to cross that little sea

  9. This is so biased against Christians that it's embarassing. The crusades only started after the muslims had violently conquered 2/3 of the Christian world. Saladin was not a good man either like they like to portray. A great military commander yes, but not a man of good character. After conquering Jerusalem he took ransom for some but also kept 16000 Christians who were enslaved and treated very poorly, especially the women who were sold as sex slaves and raped repeatedly for the rest of their lives. This video is just more anti Christian hate propaganda.

  10. Here are some quick facts regarding the Crusades.

    The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome was attacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

    If someone takes your wallet and you take it back, who is the thief?

  11. Yeah. They tried humiliating holy christiandom by saying they were a sect of a european racial population that was never influenced by the teachings of the bible and that they were born innately loving and supreme without love for holy christiandom.

  12. You make it sound like the Crusaders went in unprovoked, this was a response to the hundreds of years of Muslim expansion and invasion. The closest the history channel came was mentioning Muslim's invading and occupying Sicily for 400 years, this wasn't some angry white guys deciding to go oppress some innocent brown people that this video and alot of newer historical programs convey. I'd suggest anyone interested in this subject to do your own research and stray away from biased programs like this. Stephen Molyneux has a great condensed version that's actually factual and historically grounded.

  13. They forget to mention the old eastern Roman empire called for help to retake lands and it kinda worked out. Whoops, they've also ignored that on the way to the middle east they kinds burned and pillaged as they went

  14. Crusaders are totaly lost in these battles by great muslim leaders saladin Ayubi…watch history of islam about salahudin ayubi..

  15. For those insulting religion you don't know (Islam) and insulting a very distinguished person you have never knew (our messenger Mohamed) If you read the true history for both, you will find out that one and half billion Muslims are after true civilization, respect, honesty and common understanding. Do not forget your religions, whether you are christian or a Jew, are after the same yet, you have fanatics who manipulated religions in their favor for personal gain, pretending they are protecting faith. We as Muslims do not judge Christianity high morals or Jesus Christ ideals and teachings with the barbaric acts by fanatic Christians all over the world. Remember the mass killings in the new world in north and south America, do you think killing natives to force them to become Christina is a true christian behaviors !!. Remember the two great wars, how inhuman some Christians were and how tens of millions were killed for no good reason. Imagine forcing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to fight these dirty wars.
    Reality is , religions do not call for blood shed, that includes Islam teachings.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *