This is definitely the winning format. I get so fed up of tv ‘dramatic reconstruction’ getting in the way of a good historical discussion. History is so complicated already without extra visuals and noises being thrown in. This gives more space to concentrate. Thank you so much for these videos.
I loved the White Queen, it was extremely historically accurate also...the historically accurate part is a major necessity for me, otherwise any historical drama is a non-starter for me
Agreed. However, series like “The Last Kingdom”, “Ottoman Empire”, “Empire Games”, “Roman Empire”; I love the visuals with the subjective commentary being narrated. Like we were always told early on in school, you can never know more than the book.
Idk I kinda like them if they are done appropriately. Like the History Channel did a three part series on Grant based on Ron Chernows bio of him (he also exec produced it and was in it and Leonardo DiCaprio produced it as well)... sometimes for military purposes it’s easier to be able to visualize when you see it. But they also did a three part series on Washington that was great as well. Probably the only decent thing they HAVE done in the last decade. All from Chernow, since it was based on the bios of them by him.
Dan Jones is one of the best history communicators I've ever heard speak. Thanks for letting him do his thing and educate us while using your interview position to simply guide the discussion.
"Alt right?" It's sad when the Chinese-funded Democrat conspiracy to topple Western Civilization by hijacking & propagandizing every school, news agency and TV network in America and Europe is so successful, a whole generation considers anything NOT part of this radicalism "alt right." Hey Dan Jones, why don't you keep your distorted political attitudes to yourself and stick to the subject, eh?
Love how this guy can communicate things in a clear and interesting way. I read his book “the templars” and to spite not knowing much of the subject before reading, I came away with so much knowledge and was hooked!
Every week a new revised version of history is being sold. So by now you are 20 versions outdated (making an absurd assumption this an these comments weren't just created an backdated a year like so much of the world).
As someone who's never looked into the crusades in any real depth before, this was immensely helpful both to understand a little bit of the history and historical context, as well as reframing their significance for the modern context. Absolutely fantastic!
As a history lover I love hearing in depth analogy. I love the fact that he started with the Muslim conquest all the way into Europe that stirred the Hornets nest.
@@Tom-mk7nd I get sick of the ol "ah holy warriors huh? burning villages sounds so Godly. Christianity therefore bad!!" I'm like...ah and your ignorance of the bigger picture, just from that 1 little piece of nugget history you've clearly consumed, is why you will remain ignorant to truth. Forget not, everyone is imperfect...therefore we are always subject to doing the wrong thing, despite the intentions. Templars were a notorious example of what to do, and what NOT to do for ones faith. By no means is this my way of saying "Christianity, or die", but rather to understand the mindset of the Templars (as Dan explains thoroughly here: schisms in the Eastern and Western churches about Papal succession was a big issue, as well as the remission of sins, and so forth). At any rate, I think it's important we all always look deeper, rather than close the book and claim we know all. Ignorance is the death of truth, and truth is the ignorance of death. Cheers. Be safe, be well.
I love Dan Jones. His book Crusaders is an outstanding read and couldn't put it down cover to cover. Wonderful having him on History Hit. Hope to see more of him. Thanks very much to The Two Dans
Wow. Fascinating and well explained. Honestly, this is the first time that I was able to see Dan as a true scholar and historian rather than a TV presenter, who typically have just a passing knowledge or limited interest in a subject. Much respect.
This is my first time on this channel, and between the description calling them the two Dans and something about this editing style on RUclips, I was really confused if this was just one person interviewing himself (I have a hard time telling faces apart if they're not side by side) 😂 Thanks for helping me out with this comment!
The 2 Dans work well together in this remote interview. They have the knack of breaking the subject down and presenting the informational in a straightforward entertaining and informative way that manages to harness their enthusiasm for the subject. So refreshing when compared to the po faced historians we've been used to on TV for so long like the insufferable David Starkey
This was seriously one of the best breakdowns I've ever heard on a complex topic like the Crusades. Damn knows his stuff and how to make it make sense. Thanks for letting him gush. Subscribed.
Dan's documentary on St. Patrick was one of the best documentaries I've ever seen and I've seen a multitude of them over my 60 years. He is really good at this...
@@flouisbailey I'm simply not a good enough conversationalist to just slip that into a discussion about the weather... but if you can, you absolutely should!
@@MsSteelphoenix I have a friend or two who I think I can interject this. As you said about your new 40 inch computer screen, we don’t talk enough about the 4th crusade, a real shitShow don’t you think. LOLing the hoped for look on their faces.
Marvelous! Just finished the Crusaders book and it was a complete study of the characters, politics, religion, and personal stories for those times. Loved it!
Other upshot of the Fourth Crusade is that the Venetians totally obliterated their only major Christian rivals in the eastern Mediterranean and cemented their power and wealth for another 300 years
@@allangibson2408 The Ottomans wouldn't even exist for another Century. Naw, the Byzantines did that themselves. The Second Palaiologan Civil War was the final nail in the coffin that reduced them to an effective City State for the final century of their existence to the benefit of Serbia and, yes the Ottomans who defeated and conquered them. When the Fourth Crusade took place the Empire was already on the verge of Civil war and Collapse having lost more than half its territory during the prior two decades, and immediately descended into civil war the moment Constantinople fell. A healthy empire doesn't collapse the moment its capital falls to a relatively small force. If it wasn't the Crusaders it would have been the Bulgarians.
@@alexandernelson724 The fourth crusade gutted Constantinople and installed a Crusader king in place of the Emperor. That set the stage for the Ottomans to take over a weakened state.
@@allangibson2408 This. Constantinople was the rock Byzantium was built on. The romans throughout the medieval period suffered disaster after disaster but were almost always back. This is largely due to the stability and wealth that the massive (comparative to any other city in Europe) city of Constantinople provided. With the city gutted, the Palaiologoi were working in a no-fail situation with no fall back like say Alexios Komnenos (who got crushed at Dyraccium and just used the wealth to hire a whole new army)
These and Snow’s monologues have really kept me busy lately. I love listen to the solo stories or monologues when going to sleep at night. The two person interview like this style makes my brain too active to sleep at night lol. Keep it up! Great stuff from HH lately.
This was great. I read Crusaders and was amazed at the amount of research and information uncovered in those far away times, and how Dan Jones put it all together in cohesive form. Another of his books is Power and Thrones, which is worth a read too.
I think of the historiography of the Crusades like that of the numerous conflicts between natives and settlers here in the US: not nearly as many villains as you've been told, far fewer heroes than you think, but a helluva lot of victims.
I listened to the whole thing, and while I knew most of it, it feels refreshing to hear someone put it in such a simple way. Love the interviewer for guiding and not controlling the interview and Dan Jones did a fantastic job at keeping clear what he was talking about without falling on specific anecdotes or such things.
I do feel the fourth crusade is supremely underrated and not talked about enough. It is probably the most important crusade (though arguably after the first for being the first) because of it's overall lasting impact. The fourth crusade really did set up the Roman (Byzantine) Empire to collapse. The rise of the Ottoman Empire was enabled in large part because of a weak Byzantine Empire... The Ottomans would take over Constantinople and begin to take control over the final leg of the silk road before Europe which will drive Europeans to find new routed to the east. The Ottoman Empire would also be the big scary giant in the east. The crusaders did a lot to create the rise of the ottoman empire in unimaginable ways... All from destroying a Christian city.
True, it should be better taught, especially because it is also one of the most misunderstood crusades, the common view is that the greedy crusaders just decided to sack Constantinople for the heck of it, that is actually completely wrong, in fact, if certain political factors hadn't taken place in Constantinople its self there was a very good chance it wouldn't have happened at all, it was a very complex political mess which was in no small part the fault of the Nobles of the Byzantine Empire, another little known thing is that not all the Crusaders participated in the siege, many refused and continued on to the Holy Land, another thing not commonly known is that the Pope canceled the Crusade and Excommunicated everyone who took part in the siege as soon as he found out.
@@Peregrin3 A great majority of the Crusaders did take part in the sack which ravaged nuns in churches, burnt acres to the ground and crippled both the Romans and the Latin is in the long term. I the whole saga was started by greedy Venetians who were willing to take money through blood. This was meant to be a Christian mission and there is no excuse for pillaging and innocent city. Byzantine instability is what a lad for this but nobody ever thought anyone could be so disgusting as to go through with it
I love the Dan's they're great at explaining history in a fun and approachable way. It helps that they don't make themselves like 'I've got a degree from a prestigious university and I'm way smarter than you' tone to their voices. They just sound super excited go share something cool that they love
It's always a pleasure to see these guys discuss history. The Middle Ages come alive! I've watched the "Bloodiest Dynasty" four times and it works every time. Acting, French being spoken, costumes, and good production values make a huge difference.
Dan Jones is one of my favorite historical authors because he weaves a coherent and vivid narrative. I remember his books in color, whereas my memory of sine history books is in black and white. Dan Jones also squashes historical gossip saying in no uncertain terms that there is no evidence for something, and it's just fanciful bs. So great to hear him interviewed. Dan Snow does a good job of asking questions that shape the discussion but then keeping his mouth shut! Good interview! These two gave me one of the best portraits of the Crusades I have heard. Thanks!
Thank you for this informative video. I do think Mr Jones needs to add the "problem of noble violence" to his explanation. Lots of Europe but particularly France had been atomised in this period by armed men setting themselves up in castles and squeezing the local people for loot with extortion and violence. These men are typically noble, often second, third sons (etc) with no inheritance - but also any other man at arms or bandit who can afford a horse and armour. Attempts to limit this rapacity by the Church (the Peace of God and Truce of God movements) failed. So, these men needed to be channelled somewhere and, when Byzantine Emperor Alexios issued his plea for help, Urban II had somewhere to send them.
Thank god finally just two dudes talking about the subject, no dramatic music or lame ass AI reconstructed imagery, no shitty voice over where they just repeat the same information 10 different ways, one dude asks a question then it’s answered as clearly as possible love it guys keep it up
Nope they know clearly what they are doing, they know 100% why the Crusades happened, but will never say , I will give you a clue , all the lands of North Africa middle east Asia Minor were Christian in the years 100 200 300 400 500 600 ,
A lot of good info and a fun interview. Very enjoyable. What I would advise for next time is don’t edit the questioner in asking questions and maybe do a side by side interview using two cameras, one for a long shot and one for focus. It’s a bit jarring when y’all swap as it feels like a really rough cut.
Because I was unlearning as much as I was learning during this fantastic interview, I kept using the jump-back-10secs button to repeat parts. Which is how I also learned Dan Jones has the most fantastic facial expressions; they truly are a marvel in paused frames. Also duuuuh I'm a little face blind & I thought these were the same Dan so it's nice to have 45 mins juxtaposing them.
The thing that is so often overlooked I find is that Christendom had been on the backfoot for centuries against the Arab/Muslim world. The story of Byzantium between the 7th and 11th centuries is one of near-constant warfare with Arab states, and for most of that time the Byzantines were on the defensive. The Near East was conquered by Arab armies centuries earlier, fuelled by the zeal of Islam. It wasn't like the Crusades invented religious wars or were even the first example in that region. It seems like vital context to me and it's seldom mentioned in any great detail.
There's no taboo around the honest discussion of Islam; it's just that more often than not, that "honest discussion" is really just a tool for right-wingers to shit on brown people.
@@jbo4547 there’s a big difference between honesty about Islam of that time vs projecting modern Islamophobia onto those times… Back then, Islam did spread violently through conquest of massive amounts of territory. People were murdered, tortured, raped, and all the other terrible things that come with war- particularly in medieval times. Several caliphates splintered or collapsed over petty power struggles as leaders were assassinated and as sectarian lines began to take shape. Islam also happened to be the center of learning in an area that stretched from Britain to Iran. Baghdad and Alexandria in particular were extremely well-known centers for learning and scientific advancement. When the Muslims conquered Spain and Portugal, they reintroduced ancient philosophy, advanced building techniques, and they brought vastly superior medicine and irrigation methods with them. Muslim Spain actually had a fairly high tolerance for Jews and Christians (who paid an extra tax in lieu on conversion to Islam), as opposed to the Spanish Inquisition that followed the Muslim period. So yeah, turns out war is bad, whether waged by Muslims or Christians, conquest kills and warfare exposes the worst in humanity. It also appears that Muslims are people, so they have the same internal hypocrisies and power struggles that Christians do. But if you know what you’re talking about, and you were forced to pick between living in 11th century Paris vs 11th century Baghdad, you’d be a fool to not pick Baghdad. Just like how you’d be a fool to not pick 21st century Paris today over 21st century Baghdad.
Anyone who blames crusaders for fueling "war" is simply lying. The arabian offensive took the entire christian east, the entire christian northern africa and their successors even managed to reach and besiege Austria and Spain. AUSTRIA...Does any of those people know where Austria is? Because it doesnt get any more central than that. How can anyone honestly shitft the blame to some lousy crusades that targeted 1/2 cities at best when the other side literally took over continents after massive invasions? Crusaders were failed responses to an increasingly losing battle against the caliphats and their successors.... Nothing more, nothing less. The only meaningful crusade that had a lasting impact was the 4th crusade...Yes, the one that invaded Constantinople and destroyed the christian Byzantine empire, which helped the Ottomans finish the Byzantines off, a few years later. Nice one fourth crusaders...I guess it counts as a success in the most backwards way ever.
I completely agree with DJ about HRE Friedrich II (Hohenstaufen) -- aka "Stupor Mundi" ["wonder of the world"]. I urge that he be retroactively awarded an honorary Nobel Peace Prize for the 6th (non-)Crusade. He achieved by peaceful means and negotiation with the Muslims in their own language (he spoke 6 languages fluently) what other Crusades and Crusaders could not achieve by force of arms. Friedrich II deserves to be remembered -- and deserves the Peace Prize a lot more than some recipients in recent years. If he and the popes had hit it off a bit better, he might have gone down in history as one of the greatest leaders in history.
Love history but not many people can make it interesting and yet i could listen to the two Dans all day long being selfish here please keep this going thank you
Whoa... did he leave out Frederick Barbarossa in the 3rd crusade? He was the first of the Western kings to move out and was quite successful in the beginning before his untimely death.
@@hakonandreasolaussen1949 I was talking about the 3rd crusade. He was mentioning Richard the Lionheart who indeed took on the cross first. But Barbarossa was the first to actually move out with his army.
@Sebastian Well, sadly not everybody has the luxury to die in battle. Many just caught malaria and withered away. At least he died while crusading after having won some battles beforehand.
@Sebastian what do you mean? I just wanted him to mention Barbarossa since he was arguably the bigger deal among the Western rulers at the time. It's not like Richard or Phillipp were that successful either.
I was going to give you a thumbs up but stopped myself as the count had already attained the correct number and if I added one it would be too much. Then next person's thumbs up would be right out!
Thank you Dan. Fascinating and enlightening. My only quibble is that he failed to mention the many times when Muslims and “Christians” were allied against a common enemy (Christian or Muslim). The narrative of a simple great divide is quite wrong. All through history, nations have allied themselves based on their basic economic interests, and these have often not been along the lines of religion.
Funnily the Crusader States allied at times with Islamic States but obviously they back stabbed most but trade between them was also common. Really Christian and Muslim states have no problems making deals with each other to screw over fellow Christians and Muslims even well into the Early Modern Period where the Ottomans basically interfered in European Politics or how the Seljuks basically aimed the Crusaders to the Fatimids.
The crusades were hugely moved by religion tho, specially in the first one, where dukes and counts literally went bankrupt in order to fund the crusader armies and their journey eastwards
@@MRYIMEN Certainly. But that is what most people assume. The thing that is surprising to many is how often alliances crossed these boundaries. The Umayyad conquerors of Narbonne (modern-day France) in the 8th century were allied with Gothic and Gallo-Roman cities in Gaul against Charles Martel. Saladin spent more fighting co-religionists than Crusaders. Only seven years after the Turks were at the gates of Vienna in 1529, the Franco Ottoman alliance was established and has continued until modern times(!). Britain was also allied with Turkey at times. These appear throughout history.
5:01 Taken out of context. A crusade was also considered pilgrimage, which was considered an act of penance. Penance is done as an act of atonement often tasked during confession. So the point was that this was a very difficult selfless act. So its not unique to the crusades. Its something 11th century Christians would have all been aware of. Certain nobles were clearly interested in conquest, but the overwhelming majority of people who went on crusade would have done so as a genuine spiritual undertaking, rather than an opportunity for material gain. In fact, when Pope Urban preached the crusade, he added the clause "whomever goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God (The Holy Sepulcher) for devotional alone, not to gain honor or wealth, can substitute this journey for all penance". The Middle East was far more advanced and sophisticated than Western Europe at the time. Far more organized, were wealthier, and the Europeans knew it. This was not like the US/Iraq war where it was one powerful country dominating a weaker one, it was weaker countries banding together to fight a vastly superior force. However it should be noted that the Crusaders believed God was on their side, otherwise no one would have been stupid enough walk nearly 3000 miles to fight a near impossible war. VERY few people gained wealth from the Crusades, any loot the average person would have gained during the Crusade would have been used right away to feed themselves. This was not one army after all, it was a massive coalition of small bands of soldiers, the Nobles had to pay their men whenever they could for that very reason. So almost no one who went on Crusade returned to Europe with anything, often far poorer than they had been before and that includes the nobility. So it paints a much different picture when you don't omit facts. what i really dislike about this interview is how he's clearly trying to apply a modern sense of morality to people who lived 1000 years ago. Thats not how you study or teach history. Also, he mentioned how Muslims would have thought that the Christians had been fighting holy wars against Islam for hundreds of years before the first Crusade. These were all defensive wars, when Islam exploded out of Arabia it conquered all of the middle east, North Africa, Sicily, and almost all of modern day Spain and Portugal. (all of which were Christian before Islam existed) under the pretext of Jihad, conquered, and enslaved massive amounts of Christian land, and people.
The fourth crusade deserves little bit more context to understand than what is presented in the video due to the limitations of time. A pretender to the title of the emperor (future Alexios IV) of the Eastern Roman Empire promised the crusaders if they help him get the throne for himself, he's going to pay for the crusade and provide provisions for the crusaders as well. After they arrived to Constantinople the current emperor Alexios III tried to engage in battle but had no support of the army, was shouted at, laughed at and mocked by the Latin knights and had to withdraw back into the city. Then he fled the city at night and Alexios IV became the emperor. He however could not raise the gold and provisions which were promised to the crusaders and became very unpopular due to tax increases and stripping churches of gold and silver valuables to pay the crusaders. Eventually Alexios IV was overthrown and strangled and the new leadership was highly anti-latin and anti-crusader oriented just like the most of the population of Constantinople at the time. This was followed by a massacre of Latin quarters of the city where mostly merchants with their families from Venice and Genoa stayed. The crusaders observed this from the other side of the Golden Horn, people fleeing in their ships or jumping in the waters of Golden Horn, some drowning and those who survived informed the crusaders what had happened in the city. This provoked the Venetians to storm the sea walls of Constantinople, take the city and sack it. The political intriques of the greeks were at the core of what happened in the 4th crusade. It's always about the power and wealth.
you kind of forgot to mention the sacking of the city of Zara. The 4th crusade was a a cashgrab from the beggining and a massive stain on the papacy, it impressive though that 1000 year propaganda is still standing. I hope you will not say that the Greeks are worst than the Jews so they need cleansing as the catholic priest where saying then.
@@tsarpalinho The 4th crusade is not at all a stain in the papacy, the pope warned them not to attack Zara and excommunicated the entire crusading army afterewards.
@@johnbaker4246 What about the Northern Crusades in Northeast Europe? Alongside attacking pagans for forced conversions, they also attacked Eastern Orthodox Christians there.
@@realtalk6195 I cannot say, I am not familiar with that. The original comment here was about the 4th crusade which I know enough about to comment here, but I cannot say that about my very limited knowledge of the northern crusades.
This was very interesting talk 👍 although I was hoping that the Children's Crusade gets a mention as it was probably the most bizarre notion for them all.
fails to mention the muslim aggression that led to them as well then. how they had aggresivley expanded using warfare to move from the arabian penisula to all of north africa attacking spain portugal the byzantines.
Christians had reason to go to Holy Land and protect what was sacred for them. Arab Muslim expansion, that happened few centuries before Crusades, was also marked by murders, looting, raping, destroying villages and cities and taking slaves. The Middle East, which was predominantly Christian that time, has changed forever since then. Countries like Egypt or Syria were entirely Christian then; today only tiny Christian minorities survive here and there across the Middle East. Eventually, the Muslim expansion to the West ended in the heart of Europe, France: the battle of Poitiers in 732; that's quite far away from Arabia; not to mention what business they might have there. Probably, to prevent future Christian attacks.
42:21 Dan Jones saying that the last remnant of an Islamic power in mainland Europe is extinguished in 1492 is astonishing. At that exact time the Ottomans already had quite a significant portion of mainland Europe and were about to gain more in the next two centuries.
There is something to keep in mind about the people who went on crusades, many were already immensely rich, this was a period known as the medieval renaissance, contrary to most modern depictions in movies Europe was not a dismal, impoverished backward land compared to the Islamic world, on the contrary, it was flourishing, in fact, when they came to the Holy Land they brought a lot of knowledge with them, particularly in things like agriculture and castle building advances. There were many very powerful and Rich Nobles who sold most of their lands to go on a very long voyage where there was a very good chance they would die before they even made it there, then once the crusades were finished most of them returned to Europe significantly poorer then they had been. In fact, the journey was so dangerous that the Pope actively and strongly discouraged the poor from going, it was specifically to avoid what happened in the so-called Children's Crusade and Peoples Crusade neither of which was sanctioned by the Papacy and were in fact in violation of his orders.
Interestingly, one of the greatest writers of the First Crusade was Stephen of Blois, who, before he becomes a ruler of England after the Anarchy period, wrote to his wife the many scenes of the event as he was fighting in it.
Wasn't there a change of Muslim leadership in Jerusalem that had been friendly to Western Christian community. Then the Seljuks came in and stopped a lot of the pilgrimage taking place in the Levant. They were more openly hostile to the Byzantines and other Jewish & Christian leadership. Before that the Muslim leaders in Jerusalem had quite productive relationships with the Christians.
I think you’re correct. I think the Seljuks practiced a more extreme or strict version of Islam and they did not want Christians in the Holy Land at all.
When the Crusaders finally got to Jerusalem years after the call, the Fatimid Caliphate had already taken back Jerusalem from the Seljuks and reopened Christian pilgrimage. But the Crusaders didn’t care to see the difference between the groups and attacked anyway
@@GCKing9598 Palestine between 970 and 1071 came under the rule of the Fatimid Empire, the Isma'ili Muslim empire based in Cairo. It was particularly Fatimid emperor Al-Hakim (985-1021) that persecuted rival religions including Sunni Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Under his rule, the Fatimids turned away Christian pilgrims. Jerusalem itself came under Seljuk-affiliated rule in 1073 and then to Fatimid rule again in 1098. There are indeed claims that Christian pilgrims were prevented at various points during the Seljuk period of rule, but it wasn't persecution and more so because there was always conflict between rival Seljuk leaders/factions there vying for power. The Papacy brought up the mistreatment of Christian pilgrims to justify the Crusades. The Crusaders engaged in sieges and sacking in Syria between 1097 and 1098. They conquered Jerusalem from the Fatimids in 1099. Fatimid Egypt and the Byzantines were allies during the 11th century, and viewed the Seljuks as their enemy. Palestine coming under Seljuk rule rather than Fatimid rule is why the Byzantines asked the Pope for help. The Byzantines also informed the Crusaders of the Fatimids being allies. The Crusaders were supposed to hand over land they conquered in Syria to the Byzantines, which they didn't. Why did the Crusaders wait a year to march on to Jerusalem? It's because in 1098 they received a delegation from Fatimid Egypt who asked them to stay put in Antioch. It was a Fatimid-Crusader alliance by way of the Byzantine-Crusader alliance. However, in 1099 when the Fatimids were bringing down defenses in Jerusalem (after having conquered it from the Seljuks), the Crusaders took advantage to siege Jerusalem. This was despite the fact that pilgrims at this point were indeed allowed. During the Third Crusade, the Crusaders ended up allying with factions of the Fatimids-at one point Shawar but mostly the Nizaris-against the Zengids and Ayyubids.
I enjoyed this video and I’d like to hear more about the Teutonic crusades and the Muslim reclamation of the crusader states in the Middle East. However, I noticed a bias on what you said: You described Zengi as very violent, but you neglected to mention that the Europeans and their first Crusade had previously been very violent. Look at what they did to the people in Jerusalem, for example. The crusaders on the first crusade also ate human flesh. I consider that worth mentioning if you’re going to mention Zengi in a negative way.
I suspect that a lot of hype in the crusades was propaganda but it’s really interesting to see how the impact was a lot more spaced out over time then I expected
The Crusades were the reason why the Byzantine Empire fell. The Fourth Crusade was supposed to retake Jerusalem but the Crusaders marched on Constantinople and captured it to line the Venetians' pockets.
The Fourth Crusade is reason number 7 out of 100 reasons why the Byzantines fell. They had already lost all of Anatolia even before the First Crusade and were plagued by Civil Wars, the Fourth Crusade just being one of them.
@@libertyprime6932 Egypt was lost before Anatolia. The Arabs conquered Egypt in the seventh century. Anatolia was lost after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Alexius Komemenus invited the Crusaders into Constantinope in the hopes of regaining the Holy Land. That was a big mistake. He should have sent them on their way.
The Fourth Crusade certainly didn't help Byzantium, but it only slightly hastened its downfall. When you have very frequent civil wars upon succession, you won't last forever.
@@johnbaker4246 more than hasten mate. It crippled them. They would have diposed the Angeloi and moved on like they always do. Having their population dwindle with no economic confidence and the taint of their impregnable city being taken crippled it into being a glorified city state. It was in decline but this destroyed it
Yes and no at the sametime, the Crusades may have done a lot of permanent harm and some good for Byzantium but the real issue is just that everyone hates Byzantium, the Turks and the Islamic World and the Venitians and Catholic States with some excemption with the Papacy, the Byzantines' fate basically was sealed when Turks won the battle of Manzekert, so if the Crusaders doesn't end them someone else would have ended them eventually. The Crusaders just put the final nail in any chance of Byzantium to recover.
Love the interview! Really informative: one note, though. Might wanna zoom out just a tad bit for interviewer Dan. Typically a really up close shot is done for dramatic effect so I was genuinely confused for the first minute of the video whether it was a sketch or a normal interview. Loved the questions and the background. Much better than re-enactments.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
This is definitely the winning format. I get so fed up of tv ‘dramatic reconstruction’ getting in the way of a good historical discussion. History is so complicated already without extra visuals and noises being thrown in. This gives more space to concentrate. Thank you so much for these videos.
Totally agree, long-winded history documentaries have so quickly become outdated.
I loved the White Queen, it was extremely historically accurate also...the historically accurate part is a major necessity for me, otherwise any historical drama is a non-starter for me
Agreed. However, series like “The Last Kingdom”, “Ottoman Empire”, “Empire Games”, “Roman Empire”; I love the visuals with the subjective commentary being narrated. Like we were always told early on in school, you can never know more than the book.
Yes^
Idk I kinda like them if they are done appropriately. Like the History Channel did a three part series on Grant based on Ron Chernows bio of him (he also exec produced it and was in it and Leonardo DiCaprio produced it as well)... sometimes for military purposes it’s easier to be able to visualize when you see it. But they also did a three part series on Washington that was great as well. Probably the only decent thing they HAVE done in the last decade. All from Chernow, since it was based on the bios of them by him.
Dan Jones is one of the best history communicators I've ever heard speak. Thanks for letting him do his thing and educate us while using your interview position to simply guide the discussion.
"Alt right?" It's sad when the Chinese-funded Democrat conspiracy to topple Western Civilization by hijacking & propagandizing every school, news agency and TV network in America and Europe is so successful, a whole generation considers anything NOT part of this radicalism "alt right." Hey Dan Jones, why don't you keep your distorted political attitudes to yourself and stick to the subject, eh?
I like this. Two guys sitting in a small room, surrounded by BOOKS, talking history. No gimmicks. Just discussing and sharing information. 👍
No crazy tv show with cuts every 3 seconds. xD
Tea of coffee was missing.
I'm jealous. My book collection is quite sizeable but it doesn't match this. Envious of the Dans.
Love how this guy can communicate things in a clear and interesting way. I read his book “the templars” and to spite not knowing much of the subject before reading, I came away with so much knowledge and was hooked!
Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner ruclips.net/user/TinShipProd to cut throgh the BULL.
Every week a new revised version of history is being sold. So by now you are 20 versions outdated (making an absurd assumption this an these comments weren't just created an backdated a year like so much of the world).
I could (and do sometimes) listen to Dan jones talk about medieval history all day
As someone who's never looked into the crusades in any real depth before, this was immensely helpful both to understand a little bit of the history and historical context, as well as reframing their significance for the modern context. Absolutely fantastic!
It's a fascinating subject, sadly it's often misrepresented and oversimplified
There are a lot of falsehoods and propaganda in this segment. I would do my own research if I were you. Dan Jones is notoriously anti-Christian.
As a history lover I love hearing in depth analogy. I love the fact that he started with the Muslim conquest all the way into Europe that stirred the Hornets nest.
@@Tom-mk7nd I get sick of the ol "ah holy warriors huh? burning villages sounds so Godly. Christianity therefore bad!!"
I'm like...ah and your ignorance of the bigger picture, just from that 1 little piece of nugget history you've clearly consumed, is why you will remain ignorant to truth. Forget not, everyone is imperfect...therefore we are always subject to doing the wrong thing, despite the intentions. Templars were a notorious example of what to do, and what NOT to do for ones faith.
By no means is this my way of saying "Christianity, or die", but rather to understand the mindset of the Templars (as Dan explains thoroughly here: schisms in the Eastern and Western churches about Papal succession was a big issue, as well as the remission of sins, and so forth).
At any rate, I think it's important we all always look deeper, rather than close the book and claim we know all.
Ignorance is the death of truth, and truth is the ignorance of death.
Cheers. Be safe, be well.
Absolutely loving these extended sit down interviews with a Historian!
ye I love it. AND IT*S FREEEEEEE
And Dan Jones is one of the very best.
Dinosaurs an Santa clause is even more thrilling an exciting than the bankers following jesus story here
I love Dan Jones. His book Crusaders is an outstanding read and couldn't put it down cover to cover. Wonderful having him on History Hit. Hope to see more of him. Thanks very much to The Two Dans
Wow. Fascinating and well explained. Honestly, this is the first time that I was able to see Dan as a true scholar and historian rather than a TV presenter, who typically have just a passing knowledge or limited interest in a subject. Much respect.
Snow.... Jones..... The two British Titans of Dan-dom!
This is my first time on this channel, and between the description calling them the two Dans and something about this editing style on RUclips, I was really confused if this was just one person interviewing himself (I have a hard time telling faces apart if they're not side by side) 😂 Thanks for helping me out with this comment!
@@Bpaynee Wtf they don't look similar
That's racist :))
The 2 Dans work well together in this remote interview. They have the knack of breaking the subject down and presenting the informational in a straightforward entertaining and informative way that manages to harness their enthusiasm for the subject. So refreshing when compared to the po faced historians we've been used to on TV for so long like the insufferable David Starkey
This was seriously one of the best breakdowns I've ever heard on a complex topic like the Crusades. Damn knows his stuff and how to make it make sense. Thanks for letting him gush. Subscribed.
Dan's documentary on St. Patrick was one of the best documentaries I've ever seen and I've seen a multitude of them over my 60 years. He is really good at this...
"We don't talk about the Fourth Crusade." 🤣
Fantastic overview of the Crusades and the history.
That’s the best one though. Such a shitshow!
Now I can work this into conversation, “we don’t talk enough about the 4th Crusade”, what do you think?
@@flouisbailey I'm simply not a good enough conversationalist to just slip that into a discussion about the weather... but if you can, you absolutely should!
@@MsSteelphoenix I have a friend or two who I think I can interject this. As you said about your new 40 inch computer screen, we don’t talk enough about the 4th crusade, a real shitShow don’t you think. LOLing the hoped for look on their faces.
good , yes, fantatic? , no
Marvelous! Just finished the Crusaders book and it was a complete study of the characters, politics, religion, and personal stories for those times. Loved it!
Dan Jones is such an impeccable Historian, one of my favorites.
God I love Dan Jones. I’d devour a series by him on the crusades, especially if it’s as well acted and edited as his Plantagenets series
Hell I'd probably devour him too. ;)
By the sounds of it you'd devour his package too
Why can I only upvote once, this comment is exactly how I feel
I’d listen to Dan Jones read (and riff on) the phone book.
And these two together - home run. Could you imagine sitting in on a lecture hosted by this duo. Standing room only!
Other upshot of the Fourth Crusade is that the Venetians totally obliterated their only major Christian rivals in the eastern Mediterranean and cemented their power and wealth for another 300 years
And guaranteed the rise of the Ottoman Muslim empire…
@@allangibson2408
The Ottomans wouldn't even exist for another Century.
Naw, the Byzantines did that themselves. The Second Palaiologan Civil War was the final nail in the coffin that reduced them to an effective City State for the final century of their existence to the benefit of Serbia and, yes the Ottomans who defeated and conquered them. When the Fourth Crusade took place the Empire was already on the verge of Civil war and Collapse having lost more than half its territory during the prior two decades, and immediately descended into civil war the moment Constantinople fell. A healthy empire doesn't collapse the moment its capital falls to a relatively small force. If it wasn't the Crusaders it would have been the Bulgarians.
@@alexandernelson724 The fourth crusade gutted Constantinople and installed a Crusader king in place of the Emperor.
That set the stage for the Ottomans to take over a weakened state.
@@allangibson2408 This. Constantinople was the rock Byzantium was built on. The romans throughout the medieval period suffered disaster after disaster but were almost always back. This is largely due to the stability and wealth that the massive (comparative to any other city in Europe) city of Constantinople provided. With the city gutted, the Palaiologoi were working in a no-fail situation with no fall back like say Alexios Komnenos (who got crushed at Dyraccium and just used the wealth to hire a whole new army)
The Byzantines actually deserved it. They just ratted every neighbor they had until that moment.
These and Snow’s monologues have really kept me busy lately. I love listen to the solo stories or monologues when going to sleep at night. The two person interview like this style makes my brain too active to sleep at night lol. Keep it up! Great stuff from HH lately.
This was great. I read Crusaders and was amazed at the amount of research and information uncovered in those far away times, and how Dan Jones put it all together in cohesive form. Another of his books is Power and Thrones, which is worth a read too.
Great suggestions I’ll definitely read both
I really enjoyed his work on the Templars. Totally absorbing and well-researched, yet written almost as a novel.
Dan Jones sells falsehoods and propaganda, not accurate information.
Dan Jones is far more than just a TV presenter, love it!!!
I just finished reading Dan Jone's excellent book "The Plantagenets." Such a great and accessible writer of history.
I suggest you read his other works such as The War of the Roses.
@@Redladyanna literally finished it a few days ago
Didn't even look at a script or anything, he was going from memory. Love Dan Jones, I need more content from him
He is telling lots of lies here especially by omission
This is the best kind of lecture in that Mr. Jones just presents the fact in a wonderful story
Thanks
Thanks so much Michael!
I think of the historiography of the Crusades like that of the numerous conflicts between natives and settlers here in the US: not nearly as many villains as you've been told, far fewer heroes than you think, but a helluva lot of victims.
victims being other Christians half the time
Thanks!
Thank you so much herojh!
I listened to the whole thing, and while I knew most of it, it feels refreshing to hear someone put it in such a simple way. Love the interviewer for guiding and not controlling the interview and Dan Jones did a fantastic job at keeping clear what he was talking about without falling on specific anecdotes or such things.
Love it when the two Dan's get together 👏
Get Dan Carlin here to complete the holy trinity
these two are excellent, can listen to them for hours.
@@Siegbert85 I was going to say this lol
Dans, not Dan's
@@Siegbert85 the episode of Carlin’s podcast Jones just went on a bit ago for his book is a good one
I do feel the fourth crusade is supremely underrated and not talked about enough. It is probably the most important crusade (though arguably after the first for being the first) because of it's overall lasting impact.
The fourth crusade really did set up the Roman (Byzantine) Empire to collapse. The rise of the Ottoman Empire was enabled in large part because of a weak Byzantine Empire... The Ottomans would take over Constantinople and begin to take control over the final leg of the silk road before Europe which will drive Europeans to find new routed to the east.
The Ottoman Empire would also be the big scary giant in the east.
The crusaders did a lot to create the rise of the ottoman empire in unimaginable ways... All from destroying a Christian city.
You should join in with their next video. Very informative. Thanks
Horrible when you think about it. Europeans being Europeans, always infighting, sealed their own fate.
True, it should be better taught, especially because it is also one of the most misunderstood crusades, the common view is that the greedy crusaders just decided to sack Constantinople for the heck of it, that is actually completely wrong, in fact, if certain political factors hadn't taken place in Constantinople its self there was a very good chance it wouldn't have happened at all, it was a very complex political mess which was in no small part the fault of the Nobles of the Byzantine Empire, another little known thing is that not all the Crusaders participated in the siege, many refused and continued on to the Holy Land, another thing not commonly known is that the Pope canceled the Crusade and Excommunicated everyone who took part in the siege as soon as he found out.
@@Peregrin3 A great majority of the Crusaders did take part in the sack which ravaged nuns in churches, burnt acres to the ground and crippled both the Romans and the Latin is in the long term. I the whole saga was started by greedy Venetians who were willing to take money through blood. This was meant to be a Christian mission and there is no excuse for pillaging and innocent city. Byzantine instability is what a lad for this but nobody ever thought anyone could be so disgusting as to go through with it
@@xplicitfishin not exclusive to Europeans no
I love the Dan's they're great at explaining history in a fun and approachable way. It helps that they don't make themselves like 'I've got a degree from a prestigious university and I'm way smarter than you' tone to their voices. They just sound super excited go share something cool that they love
This man/these men know their topic.
No power-point, no script, no gimmicks.
Just brilliant.
I love hearing these two talk about history.
It's always a pleasure to see these guys discuss history. The Middle Ages come alive! I've watched the "Bloodiest Dynasty" four times and it works every time. Acting, French being spoken, costumes, and good production values make a huge difference.
Dan Jones is one of my favorite historical authors because he weaves a coherent and vivid narrative. I remember his books in color, whereas my memory of sine history books is in black and white. Dan Jones also squashes historical gossip saying in no uncertain terms that there is no evidence for something, and it's just fanciful bs. So great to hear him interviewed. Dan Snow does a good job of asking questions that shape the discussion but then keeping his mouth shut! Good interview! These two gave me one of the best portraits of the Crusades I have heard. Thanks!
That was a nice little summary, you can tell the depth of his knowledge
Someone once said "if you can't explain a subject simply, you don't understand it". Very true in this case.
Dan Jones is very knowledgeable about the Crusades - I learned a lot
Thank you for this informative video. I do think Mr Jones needs to add the "problem of noble violence" to his explanation. Lots of Europe but particularly France had been atomised in this period by armed men setting themselves up in castles and squeezing the local people for loot with extortion and violence. These men are typically noble, often second, third sons (etc) with no inheritance - but also any other man at arms or bandit who can afford a horse and armour. Attempts to limit this rapacity by the Church (the Peace of God and Truce of God movements) failed. So, these men needed to be channelled somewhere and, when Byzantine Emperor Alexios issued his plea for help, Urban II had somewhere to send them.
Never knew that thanks 👍
Interesting, seems logical. I wonder if there's any commentary at the time of this problem?
Mr. Jones is a joy to listen to him. Very good.🙏
What an easy to understand, succinct explanation!
Like the conversational format of this video. It's informative yet relaxed. Thanks.
That was awesome, so informative and interesting. Thanks very much to Dan Jones and the channel.
Brilliant to have the crusades described. Thank you
Dan: "The Third Crusade? Everybody knows about the Third Crusade! This is Richard the Lionheart and Saladin!"
Me: You are absolutely correct!
Thank god finally just two dudes talking about the subject, no dramatic music or lame ass AI reconstructed imagery, no shitty voice over where they just repeat the same information 10 different ways, one dude asks a question then it’s answered as clearly as possible love it guys keep it up
Nope they know clearly what they are doing, they know 100% why the Crusades happened, but will never say , I will give you a clue , all the lands of North Africa middle east Asia Minor were Christian in the years 100 200 300 400 500 600 ,
Intersting thought on Columbus and of course brilliant conversation. Thank you.
I'm happy to see the Crusades in such a clear format!
A lot of good info and a fun interview. Very enjoyable. What I would advise for next time is don’t edit the questioner in asking questions and maybe do a side by side interview using two cameras, one for a long shot and one for focus. It’s a bit jarring when y’all swap as it feels like a really rough cut.
Agreed, I don't think they're in the same room tho if you look carefully they're probs looking at computers.
I could listen to this pair of historians all the time.
Also I’d love Jones to cover the Children’s Crusade - That is something fascinating to me that isn’t explored often. Also an incredibly tragic event.
It is wonderful to learn so much about the Crusades and, also, to see two so much handsome historians and namesakes together.
Because I was unlearning as much as I was learning during this fantastic interview, I kept using the jump-back-10secs button to repeat parts. Which is how I also learned Dan Jones has the most fantastic facial expressions; they truly are a marvel in paused frames.
Also duuuuh I'm a little face blind & I thought these were the same Dan so it's nice to have 45 mins juxtaposing them.
What a fabulous historian of the Crusades, great listen!
The thing that is so often overlooked I find is that Christendom had been on the backfoot for centuries against the Arab/Muslim world. The story of Byzantium between the 7th and 11th centuries is one of near-constant warfare with Arab states, and for most of that time the Byzantines were on the defensive.
The Near East was conquered by Arab armies centuries earlier, fuelled by the zeal of Islam. It wasn't like the Crusades invented religious wars or were even the first example in that region.
It seems like vital context to me and it's seldom mentioned in any great detail.
Because its taboo to be honest about Islam and how it spread, by the sword, unfortunately.
There's no taboo around the honest discussion of Islam; it's just that more often than not, that "honest discussion" is really just a tool for right-wingers to shit on brown people.
@@jbo4547 there’s a big difference between honesty about Islam of that time vs projecting modern Islamophobia onto those times…
Back then, Islam did spread violently through conquest of massive amounts of territory. People were murdered, tortured, raped, and all the other terrible things that come with war- particularly in medieval times. Several caliphates splintered or collapsed over petty power struggles as leaders were assassinated and as sectarian lines began to take shape.
Islam also happened to be the center of learning in an area that stretched from Britain to Iran. Baghdad and Alexandria in particular were extremely well-known centers for learning and scientific advancement. When the Muslims conquered Spain and Portugal, they reintroduced ancient philosophy, advanced building techniques, and they brought vastly superior medicine and irrigation methods with them. Muslim Spain actually had a fairly high tolerance for Jews and Christians (who paid an extra tax in lieu on conversion to Islam), as opposed to the Spanish Inquisition that followed the Muslim period.
So yeah, turns out war is bad, whether waged by Muslims or Christians, conquest kills and warfare exposes the worst in humanity. It also appears that Muslims are people, so they have the same internal hypocrisies and power struggles that Christians do.
But if you know what you’re talking about, and you were forced to pick between living in 11th century Paris vs 11th century Baghdad, you’d be a fool to not pick Baghdad. Just like how you’d be a fool to not pick 21st century Paris today over 21st century Baghdad.
Anyone who blames crusaders for fueling "war" is simply lying. The arabian offensive took the entire christian east, the entire christian northern africa and their successors even managed to reach and besiege Austria and Spain. AUSTRIA...Does any of those people know where Austria is? Because it doesnt get any more central than that. How can anyone honestly shitft the blame to some lousy crusades that targeted 1/2 cities at best when the other side literally took over continents after massive invasions? Crusaders were failed responses to an increasingly losing battle against the caliphats and their successors.... Nothing more, nothing less.
The only meaningful crusade that had a lasting impact was the 4th crusade...Yes, the one that invaded Constantinople and destroyed the christian Byzantine empire, which helped the Ottomans finish the Byzantines off, a few years later.
Nice one fourth crusaders...I guess it counts as a success in the most backwards way ever.
Gang murderers also occur within a context of other gang murders. That doesn't excuse gang murder.
Great format. The close up camera angle really enthralled me. Especially with such good speakers.
I completely agree with DJ about HRE Friedrich II (Hohenstaufen) -- aka "Stupor Mundi" ["wonder of the world"]. I urge that he be retroactively awarded an honorary Nobel Peace Prize for the 6th (non-)Crusade. He achieved by peaceful means and negotiation with the Muslims in their own language (he spoke 6 languages fluently) what other Crusades and Crusaders could not achieve by force of arms. Friedrich II deserves to be remembered -- and deserves the Peace Prize a lot more than some recipients in recent years. If he and the popes had hit it off a bit better, he might have gone down in history as one of the greatest leaders in history.
Greatest historian bromance ever. I'm 💯 here for it! ❤️ you two and @HistoryHits!
So happy these guys are sharing this knowledge.
Love history but not many people can make it interesting and yet i could listen to the two Dans all day long being selfish here please keep this going thank you
Whoa... did he leave out Frederick Barbarossa in the 3rd crusade? He was the first of the Western kings to move out and was quite successful in the beginning before his untimely death.
Having read his book he did write about Barbarossa.
The Norwegian King Sigurd I was the first European king to partake in a crusade, not Barbarossa
@@hakonandreasolaussen1949 I was talking about the 3rd crusade.
He was mentioning Richard the Lionheart who indeed took on the cross first. But Barbarossa was the first to actually move out with his army.
@Sebastian Well, sadly not everybody has the luxury to die in battle. Many just caught malaria and withered away. At least he died while crusading after having won some battles beforehand.
@Sebastian what do you mean? I just wanted him to mention Barbarossa since he was arguably the bigger deal among the Western rulers at the time.
It's not like Richard or Phillipp were that successful either.
Started watching this channel after you sponsored an Age Of Empires 2 tournament! Please do another one so more people find this great channel!!
18:45 ... no doubt the victory at Antioch was due to their use of hand grenades.
I was going to give you a thumbs up but stopped myself as the count had already attained the correct number and if I added one it would be too much. Then next person's thumbs up would be right out!
Love the two Dans conversing. More of that please!
Thank you Dan. Fascinating and enlightening. My only quibble is that he failed to mention the many times when Muslims and “Christians” were allied against a common enemy (Christian or Muslim). The narrative of a simple great divide is quite wrong. All through history, nations have allied themselves based on their basic economic interests, and these have often not been along the lines of religion.
Very true, you can clearly see it in the Iberian Peninsula, with even Christian kings having muslim vassals.
Funnily the Crusader States allied at times with Islamic States but obviously they back stabbed most but trade between them was also common.
Really Christian and Muslim states have no problems making deals with each other to screw over fellow Christians and Muslims even well into the Early Modern Period where the Ottomans basically interfered in European Politics or how the Seljuks basically aimed the Crusaders to the Fatimids.
The crusades were hugely moved by religion tho, specially in the first one, where dukes and counts literally went bankrupt in order to fund the crusader armies and their journey eastwards
@@MRYIMEN Certainly. But that is what most people assume. The thing that is surprising to many is how often alliances crossed these boundaries. The Umayyad conquerors of Narbonne (modern-day France) in the 8th century were allied with Gothic and Gallo-Roman cities in Gaul against Charles Martel. Saladin spent more fighting co-religionists than Crusaders. Only seven years after the Turks were at the gates of Vienna in 1529, the Franco Ottoman alliance was established and has continued until modern times(!). Britain was also allied with Turkey at times. These appear throughout history.
Amazing, fun,interesting, educational conversation..never lagged..didnt move too quick...great job guys!! New fan!
Loved this!
5:01 Taken out of context. A crusade was also considered pilgrimage, which was considered an act of penance. Penance is done as an act of atonement often tasked during confession. So the point was that this was a very difficult selfless act. So its not unique to the crusades. Its something 11th century Christians would have all been aware of. Certain nobles were clearly interested in conquest, but the overwhelming majority of people who went on crusade would have done so as a genuine spiritual undertaking, rather than an opportunity for material gain. In fact, when Pope Urban preached the crusade, he added the clause "whomever goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God (The Holy Sepulcher) for devotional alone, not to gain honor or wealth, can substitute this journey for all penance".
The Middle East was far more advanced and sophisticated than Western Europe at the time. Far more organized, were wealthier, and the Europeans knew it. This was not like the US/Iraq war where it was one powerful country dominating a weaker one, it was weaker countries banding together to fight a vastly superior force. However it should be noted that the Crusaders believed God was on their side, otherwise no one would have been stupid enough walk nearly 3000 miles to fight a near impossible war.
VERY few people gained wealth from the Crusades, any loot the average person would have gained during the Crusade would have been used right away to feed themselves. This was not one army after all, it was a massive coalition of small bands of soldiers, the Nobles had to pay their men whenever they could for that very reason. So almost no one who went on Crusade returned to Europe with anything, often far poorer than they had been before and that includes the nobility. So it paints a much different picture when you don't omit facts.
what i really dislike about this interview is how he's clearly trying to apply a modern sense of morality to people who lived 1000 years ago. Thats not how you study or teach history. Also, he mentioned how Muslims would have thought that the Christians had been fighting holy wars against Islam for hundreds of years before the first Crusade. These were all defensive wars, when Islam exploded out of Arabia it conquered all of the middle east, North Africa, Sicily, and almost all of modern day Spain and Portugal. (all of which were Christian before Islam existed) under the pretext of Jihad, conquered, and enslaved massive amounts of Christian land, and people.
Great video!
The reaction when talking about the Fourth Crusade is spot on 😂
Love the format. Immensely insightful while being informative. Humorous too. Thank you
The fourth crusade deserves little bit more context to understand than what is presented in the video due to the limitations of time. A pretender to the title of the emperor (future Alexios IV) of the Eastern Roman Empire promised the crusaders if they help him get the throne for himself, he's going to pay for the crusade and provide provisions for the crusaders as well. After they arrived to Constantinople the current emperor Alexios III tried to engage in battle but had no support of the army, was shouted at, laughed at and mocked by the Latin knights and had to withdraw back into the city. Then he fled the city at night and Alexios IV became the emperor. He however could not raise the gold and provisions which were promised to the crusaders and became very unpopular due to tax increases and stripping churches of gold and silver valuables to pay the crusaders. Eventually Alexios IV was overthrown and strangled and the new leadership was highly anti-latin and anti-crusader oriented just like the most of the population of Constantinople at the time. This was followed by a massacre of Latin quarters of the city where mostly merchants with their families from Venice and Genoa stayed. The crusaders observed this from the other side of the Golden Horn, people fleeing in their ships or jumping in the waters of Golden Horn, some drowning and those who survived informed the crusaders what had happened in the city. This provoked the Venetians to storm the sea walls of Constantinople, take the city and sack it. The political intriques of the greeks were at the core of what happened in the 4th crusade. It's always about the power and wealth.
I’m still impressed of the landing craft knights could charge out of that the Genoese or Venetians (I forget which) made or had with them
you kind of forgot to mention the sacking of the city of Zara. The 4th crusade was a a cashgrab from the beggining and a massive stain on the papacy, it impressive though that 1000 year propaganda is still standing. I hope you will not say that the Greeks are worst than the Jews so they need cleansing as the catholic priest where saying then.
@@tsarpalinho The 4th crusade is not at all a stain in the papacy, the pope warned them not to attack Zara and excommunicated the entire crusading army afterewards.
@@johnbaker4246 What about the Northern Crusades in Northeast Europe? Alongside attacking pagans for forced conversions, they also attacked Eastern Orthodox Christians there.
@@realtalk6195 I cannot say, I am not familiar with that. The original comment here was about the 4th crusade which I know enough about to comment here, but I cannot say that about my very limited knowledge of the northern crusades.
I'm a simple person I see dan jones name and I click love all his works
This was very interesting talk 👍 although I was hoping that the Children's Crusade gets a mention as it was probably the most bizarre notion for them all.
yeh and tragic....what a sick minded people luring children to death lol
I love listening to Dan Jones. Such a good historian.
My history teacher described "The Crusades" as being for "God, Glory, and Gold, not necessarily in that order"...
fails to mention the muslim aggression that led to them as well then. how they had aggresivley expanded using warfare to move from the arabian penisula to all of north africa attacking spain portugal the byzantines.
This was awesome the algorithm got it right. This entire channel is great!
I like how he calls the 4th crusaded joke.
Doctor Jen Gunter is on a crusade to save your v...... :P
Thank you for doing this one. It was so timely. Brilliant.
Comments: "IM SURPRISED HE DIDN"T TALK ABOUT MY FAVORITE BIT"
Dan Jones have alot of audio books on audible about all this stuff. He's also narrates and they are amazing
These 2 need their own full time show !
Attractive, articulate and authoritative historians. Who could ask for anything more ?
Makes the BBC license fee worthy.... atlast 😅
Look forward to this channel expanding on this video in the future. thanks historyhit.
The pure "look-this-historian-has-tattoos-ness" of the thumbnail tho...
I’ve watched this 50 times, I can’t stop
Christians had reason to go to Holy Land and protect what was sacred for them.
Arab Muslim expansion, that happened few centuries before Crusades, was also marked by murders, looting, raping, destroying villages and cities and taking slaves.
The Middle East, which was predominantly Christian that time, has changed forever since then.
Countries like Egypt or Syria were entirely Christian then; today only tiny Christian minorities survive here and there across the Middle East.
Eventually, the Muslim expansion to the West ended in the heart of Europe, France: the battle of Poitiers in 732; that's quite far away from Arabia; not to mention what business they might have there. Probably, to prevent future Christian attacks.
42:21
Dan Jones saying that the last remnant of an Islamic power in mainland Europe is extinguished in 1492 is astonishing.
At that exact time the Ottomans already had quite a significant portion of mainland Europe and were about to gain more in the next two centuries.
There is something to keep in mind about the people who went on crusades, many were already immensely rich, this was a period known as the medieval renaissance, contrary to most modern depictions in movies Europe was not a dismal, impoverished backward land compared to the Islamic world, on the contrary, it was flourishing, in fact, when they came to the Holy Land they brought a lot of knowledge with them, particularly in things like agriculture and castle building advances. There were many very powerful and Rich Nobles who sold most of their lands to go on a very long voyage where there was a very good chance they would die before they even made it there, then once the crusades were finished most of them returned to Europe significantly poorer then they had been. In fact, the journey was so dangerous that the Pope actively and strongly discouraged the poor from going, it was specifically to avoid what happened in the so-called Children's Crusade and Peoples Crusade neither of which was sanctioned by the Papacy and were in fact in violation of his orders.
Actually the crusaders learned more knowledge from the middle east than they gave
somebody read Riley Smith
Thank you.
Suggest that you boost the volume.
Interestingly, one of the greatest writers of the First Crusade was Stephen of Blois, who, before he becomes a ruler of England after the Anarchy period, wrote to his wife the many scenes of the event as he was fighting in it.
Yes, hour long interviews with interesting people, that's awesome.
Wasn't there a change of Muslim leadership in Jerusalem that had been friendly to Western Christian community. Then the Seljuks came in and stopped a lot of the pilgrimage taking place in the Levant. They were more openly hostile to the Byzantines and other Jewish & Christian leadership. Before that the Muslim leaders in Jerusalem had quite productive relationships with the Christians.
I think you’re correct. I think the Seljuks practiced a more extreme or strict version of Islam and they did not want Christians in the Holy Land at all.
When the Crusaders finally got to Jerusalem years after the call, the Fatimid Caliphate had already taken back Jerusalem from the Seljuks and reopened Christian pilgrimage.
But the Crusaders didn’t care to see the difference between the groups and attacked anyway
@@GCKing9598 Palestine between 970 and 1071 came under the rule of the Fatimid Empire, the Isma'ili Muslim empire based in Cairo.
It was particularly Fatimid emperor Al-Hakim (985-1021) that persecuted rival religions including Sunni Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Under his rule, the Fatimids turned away Christian pilgrims. Jerusalem itself came under Seljuk-affiliated rule in 1073 and then to Fatimid rule again in 1098. There are indeed claims that Christian pilgrims were prevented at various points during the Seljuk period of rule, but it wasn't persecution and more so because there was always conflict between rival Seljuk leaders/factions there vying for power.
The Papacy brought up the mistreatment of Christian pilgrims to justify the Crusades. The Crusaders engaged in sieges and sacking in Syria between 1097 and 1098. They conquered Jerusalem from the Fatimids in 1099.
Fatimid Egypt and the Byzantines were allies during the 11th century, and viewed the Seljuks as their enemy. Palestine coming under Seljuk rule rather than Fatimid rule is why the Byzantines asked the Pope for help. The Byzantines also informed the Crusaders of the Fatimids being allies. The Crusaders were supposed to hand over land they conquered in Syria to the Byzantines, which they didn't.
Why did the Crusaders wait a year to march on to Jerusalem? It's because in 1098 they received a delegation from Fatimid Egypt who asked them to stay put in Antioch. It was a Fatimid-Crusader alliance by way of the Byzantine-Crusader alliance. However, in 1099 when the Fatimids were bringing down defenses in Jerusalem (after having conquered it from the Seljuks), the Crusaders took advantage to siege Jerusalem. This was despite the fact that pilgrims at this point were indeed allowed.
During the Third Crusade, the Crusaders ended up allying with factions of the Fatimids-at one point Shawar but mostly the Nizaris-against the Zengids and Ayyubids.
Yes. Complete outliers in the religion of peace
🤣@@ashleywebb2736
Dan is so cool. Hope he now teaches at Cambridge. What a breath of fresh air.
I enjoyed this video and I’d like to hear more about the Teutonic crusades and the Muslim reclamation of the crusader states in the Middle East.
However, I noticed a bias on what you said:
You described Zengi as very violent, but you neglected to mention that the Europeans and their first Crusade had previously been very violent. Look at what they did to the people in Jerusalem, for example.
The crusaders on the first crusade also ate human flesh. I consider that worth mentioning if you’re going to mention Zengi in a negative way.
Nice Dan, you seem to be a good example of studying history leading to a secular awareness informed by fact and empathy.
I suspect that a lot of hype in the crusades was propaganda but it’s really interesting to see how the impact was a lot more spaced out over time then I expected
the final segment was especially brilliant
I appreciate Dan Jones calling Columbus’s going to America an “Encounter” and not a “Discovery”.
Excellent documentary. Many thanks for your clear (and deep) explanations!
The Crusades were the reason why the Byzantine Empire fell. The Fourth Crusade was supposed to retake Jerusalem but the Crusaders marched on Constantinople and captured it to line the Venetians' pockets.
The Fourth Crusade is reason number 7 out of 100 reasons why the Byzantines fell. They had already lost all of Anatolia even before the First Crusade and were plagued by Civil Wars, the Fourth Crusade just being one of them.
@@libertyprime6932 Egypt was lost before Anatolia. The Arabs conquered Egypt in the seventh century. Anatolia was lost after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Alexius Komemenus invited the Crusaders into Constantinope in the hopes of regaining the Holy Land. That was a big mistake. He should have sent them on their way.
The Fourth Crusade certainly didn't help Byzantium, but it only slightly hastened its downfall. When you have very frequent civil wars upon succession, you won't last forever.
@@johnbaker4246 more than hasten mate. It crippled them. They would have diposed the Angeloi and moved on like they always do. Having their population dwindle with no economic confidence and the taint of their impregnable city being taken crippled it into being a glorified city state. It was in decline but this destroyed it
Yes and no at the sametime, the Crusades may have done a lot of permanent harm and some good for Byzantium but the real issue is just that everyone hates Byzantium, the Turks and the Islamic World and the Venitians and Catholic States with some excemption with the Papacy, the Byzantines' fate basically was sealed when Turks won the battle of Manzekert, so if the Crusaders doesn't end them someone else would have ended them eventually.
The Crusaders just put the final nail in any chance of Byzantium to recover.
Love the interview! Really informative: one note, though. Might wanna zoom out just a tad bit for interviewer Dan. Typically a really up close shot is done for dramatic effect so I was genuinely confused for the first minute of the video whether it was a sketch or a normal interview.
Loved the questions and the background. Much better than re-enactments.