So basically D-day but if the British hired Iceland to build boats, causing Iceland to hire them to attack Greenland, which gets them kicked out of the allies. They then proceeded create a coup to try to overthrow the Soviets, succeeded, then there was another coup, and then overthrew them again, and then failed to take France back.
Kinda, but i think you should change the "overtrow the soviets" for "overtrow the nazis" cuz then the soviets, their "arch enemy" would grow thanks to it.
@@aldo2880 certainly, but in this video it was implied that the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade was basically a brief epilogue in the history of the Roman empire.
Blazar Craft * meanwhile while the Christian's where killing themselves* Ottoman leader: I don't know general they are doing a good job at killing themselves.*grabs popcorn* Ottoman general: lets invade Constantinople later. Ottoman leader: ok but first let's sit back and in joy watching them kill each other first. Then we can kill them That's wut I think happened when the forth crusade happened on the ottoman side
It's funny because Innocent III was probably the most powerful Pope in medieval times. One did not acquire that much power and influence over the Kings and Princes of Europe by being a goody two shoes.
ware crusades any different to mercenary? read detailed history you will be shocked .. pool folk followed for "God" and the rich fooled them for "Gold"
@@Annemarie_case143 Yes they were meant to go out and do the crusade solely out out of piety. The only ones who funded the crusaders were all the kings and nobles involved. There were people's crusades, but they lacked money, organization, and any semblance of tactical skill, so they failed miserably and achieved nothing.
+Bookhead714 to be fair, the whole crusade thing was there due to islamic incursions beforehand into vast christian lands lets not forget that even after muslims take jerusalem, crusade still not a thing until many years later when they've reach the heart of europe
Brandon Tea To be fair though, He is right. The first 3 Crusade were done in response to a foreign religion capture their territory. A fact that many people who criticized the war tend to overlook.
I was just thinking about a meme I saw where there was a guy in knight armor and it said on top "my girlfriend wants me to treat her more like a princess" so then on the bottom it said "so I married her to a random guy to secure an alliance with Poland" lol
Well, I've been doing a bunch of Great Holy Wars as the Germanics in CK2 and they seem to have all gone well, though I guess an RTS doesn't follow the same rules as reality...
It wasn't such a bad joke. Let me have a go: " General Crusader my sword has gone blunt from murdering left, right and center!" " Well have you tried the morning star?" "I don't think reading the paper is going to help!"
Thanks for mentioning Zadar (Zara). Zadar was always a Christian (Catholic) city and by conquering it for Venice, Crusaders reversed the original goal of the Crusades.
When you read a little about all crusades accept the first one, it is trully hillarious:) 2nd crusade: Crusaders launch offensive on their only Muslim alllies. 3rd crusade: Emperor of the HRE faling of his horse into the river/ drowned while bathing in it (difftent versions), and after that expedition led by 2 kings that were technically at war with eachother. 4th crusade- Do I even have to say? 5th crusade- at least they tried 6th crusade- not acomplishing anything once again Bonus: 1101 crusade- Absolute fucking dissaster child crusade- Who's Idea was That?
I think all of the Crusades involved killing more Christians than Muslims to be honest. Aparrently finding Muslims was a real challenge in Anatolia and the Levant.
@@gopher3572 the levant and anatolia were still mostly Christian during the crusades. Especially anatolia which had only fallen a few years before the first crusade. egypt was also majorly coptic christian despite competant muslim rule. Soooooio
The crusaders themselves say in their own writings that the reason why they attacked Constantinople was greed and jealously of the greatness of the city.
Kind of reminds me of that time in the Silmarillion where that elf guy murdered a bunch of other elves to get some ships. It seems like truth in fiction that people kill for boats so that they can go kill some more people but end up screwed over because of bad karma.
2 centuries yes. Turks were not coming from a machine popping them up in unendless numbers. It took time for nomadic tirbes actually settle in Roman lands. It was not always by will, in most cases Mongols pushed them. An important part of the "Turkish" population was of former Christian families and it took time to convert and assymilate. There were too many gaps on the map to fill before Constantinople, which was best protected castle city of the time. And finally, even after reaching it, Turks hesitated a long time before attempting to take the city. Basically for they were afraid to trigger a new crusade and also they were aware of the huge political transformation required to control such a huge asset. They were wise to know that "leaving it as it is" also had several benefits. Certainly 4'th Crusade has an impact on Turkish-Byzantine relations. Turks (especially Ottomans) actually cared to provide a certain protection to certain characteristics of Orthodox Christianity. Their church buildings remained generally untouched, their social order, economic status, and religional identity were preserved. This is not what Orthodox Greeks (believed that they) would find under Catholic rule. In most cases the local population under centralized Ottoman rule were peaceful and supporting (even in 1402 after Battle of Ankara when Timur literally disintegrated Ottoman state, Greek part has been more loyal than the Turkish part) always being compared to a potential Catholic ruler. It is not a secret that the Patric himself once said (when Palailogos rulers decided to make their offer to the Pope to join two factions just before fall of Constantinapole) "I prefer to see the turban of Sheik-ul-Islam in Constantinapole instead the hat of a Cardinal". It is realistic to assume that Greek identity would not be preserved as good as to establish a nation state hundreds years later, if the ruler was not a Muslim dinasty. It is also not too far away to the facts, that the 4'th Crusade is sitting right in the middle of that perception.
Thats true. Turks and Muslims at the time were more open to other religions than the European Christians. Only a shame that the bastard young turks and the evil pasha family would destroy that dream.
Roland Deschain in italian it's Innocenzo, and the word for innocent in italian is innocente not in fact, Innocenzo, which was the original name of the pope! The name doesn't mean anything
While there were *some* temporary successes, and they were obviously not usually as bad as the 4th one, overall the crusades in general were an absolute failure and the most significant contribution they've had on anyone is that they've given countless history students something to laugh about as they learned about the failures of the crusades.
Pretty sure person Z was actually the rightful heir in this case (first Alexios) He had been overthrown by Alexios the Third (different guy) and the crusaders helped him get his throne back, but then he couldn't pay and Alexios the Fifth (yet another guy named Alexios, because apparently the was the only name in use at the time in Byzantium) overthrew OG Alexios and decided f*ck the Crusaders and the Crusaders were very unhappy they weren't getting paid and decided if they weren't getting gold, they'd take land instead, and everything fell apart.
A few comments, because I am a pedantic history student with too much time on his hands: 1) Although Constantinople was certainly one of the greatest cities in the world at the time, it had been undergoing a significant decline since the death of Manuel Komnenos and the infighting of the later 12th century. 2) The call to crusade was made after an appeal came from the byzantine empire, who had in the past 2-3 decades lost most of their empire to the turks thanks to factional infighting. Worth mentioning, I think! 3) The Venetian offer to the crusaders was pretty much an "offer they couldn't refuse", as most of them at that moment were camped at a specifically designated island in the venetian lagoon, where the venetian could easily cut off their supply if they failed to comply. 4) Isaac II should not have eyes. Just saying. 5) Once Alexios V had forbidden the crusaders from entering the city and cutting off their supply, they basically had two choices since most of the ships had sailed back to Venice: Assault the city or plunder their way home through the Balkans. Soldiers need to eat after all. 6) No mention of the Massacre of the Latins, nor the fact that the doge of Venice had been blinded by the byzantines for unknown reasons? Just 20 years prior to the crusade the byzantine emperor Andronikos Komnenos had encouraged the mob to massacre Constantinople's sizable latin(western) population - Around 60 000 thousand of them. The byzantines even sold thousands of latins to the turks as slaves! But all in all it's a far superior introduction to the 4th crusade compared with many other videos who portray it is a premeditated attack by the evil and greedy westerners. 8/10.
Well it wasn't like it was unprovoked. The Spanish in Iberia had been fighting a near constant war with the Jihadis for about 400 or so years, and the Eastern Bulwark of Christiandom had lost vast portions of land. Not only that but the Christians and the other infidels in the Caliphate had been oppressed and in some cases outright murdered if they didn't pay the Jizya or belong to the Dhimmi.
A more accurate comparison would probably be that the Nazis took over the entire British Empire at some point leaving only the British isles, then some years later they also take over Scotland and Ireland so the UK in retaliation goes on a quest to liberate the former British Empire.
Imagine being 400 years under the Ottoman empire and miss every major european breakthrough. And when you're free you fought in ww1 and ww2! Like it wasn't enough, after that you had a civil war! That was like to be Greece...
Great vid, and I know it can't cover everything, but the Byzantines managed to shoot themselves in the leg. In the mid 11. century, the emperor abolished the thema-system, the basis for their military, thinking they could rely on mercenaries and the troops of the local nobility. But at Manzikert it become clear, that they couldn't, when half of the army led by the rivals of the actual emperor let the seljuks defeat the other half and kill the emperor. The seljuks deytroyed almost everything in Easter-Anatolia (roads, canals, plantations, bridges) and massacred or sold the people to slavery, making it impossible for the empire to reconquer these land. (And shortly after the new emperor asked the pope for help, which lead to the crusades) The 4th crusade was just the last but trully a big nail in the (Eastern) Roman Empire's coffin.
No, from what I remember it was called the "children's crusade". This group of I say children thought they could accomplish what their elders could not. They were tricked into loading into boats for what they thought would be the holy land but turned out biggest majority of them were sold into slavery
The children’s crusade was technically not a crusade since the pope did not call for it. In fact he told them it was too dangerous and that they should give up and go home, but if you were considerate a crusade it would be the best damn crusade out there
I kind of feel sorry for Venice. They devoted a lot of time, money, and men (15,000 able bodied Venetian men) to the fourth Crusade; and when they propose a plan to make that money back the Pope excommunicates them.
The sad fact is that a Christian from the 1st century would not even recognize "Christianity" of the 4th century onward. It went against everything that Christ taught to his first followers. That is continuing today. "Christianity" of today is far removed from the actual teachings of Jesus. John 13:34,35, Matthew 5:43-46; 26:52 come to mind when we speak of the atrocities of the so-called Christian Crusades and other wars. I expect a lot of disagreement about this but you'll be arguing with the words of Jesus and not me.
@@jaycrume5941Muslims took Christian Roman land in the levant and middle east and destroyed trade in the Mediterranean and enslaved our fellow christans. Saying us christans are evil for retaliating with violence is retarded and just shows that you’re just sucking up to muslims and modernist ideals. I wouldn’t deny scriptures from the holy bibles but I will say that muslims are 5x worst than any christian. They converted almost all of the lands the did to Islam via conquest and to deny this is false and shows that you haven’t looked into a history book and compared the peaceful spread of Christianity within the Roman Empire while Islam spread through taking Persian and Eastern Roman lands in the middle east and converting these lands to Islam by the sword (Sword of Islam) Aka via warfare and enslaving the people and unleashing hordes of pirates into the Mediterranean to make trade hellish and to enslave and rape Europeans. Islam are way more violent than Christianity and any other religion as they converted all their lands through conquest (Sword of Islam). If you’re going to say Christianity has become a shadow of its former self when it comes to following the peaceful teachings of Christ, then please also criticize the muslims. Not attacking muslims for spreading by conquest while not even being provoked and attacking christians for taking back their lands is honestly bullshit and you need to stop sucking up the modernist ideas and muslims. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Byzantine_wars en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
Well, it seems like this video encourages me to believe that Crusades had nearly nothing to do with religion and was mostly just about obtaining land, money, b*tches and debt. They just placed a shiny cross on there shield and said "for god" to make them look good.
Andrew LaChapelle Pretty much XD If the 4th crusade was ment to be for religious purposes, the Kingdoms participating would try to fund it themselves XD
"about obtaining land, money, b*tches and debt." Not really, most who participated in crusades got no land, no money and no bitches, but debts were common, plenty of cases of people in fact giving up bunch of their money or their rights to lands to participate in the crusades (Son of William the Conqueror of England sold his right to the English crown to his little brother in exchange for funding to support the 1st crusade) and even then besides money from pilgrims as well as the religious value of the holy lands the lands obtained in the main crusades wasn't particularly lucrative. 4th crusade was however filled with a mess of issues, cause at the end of the day those ships cost to be built and good will is of limited exchange value to ship builders, so one mess up after another and to hope get those ships to continue on the crusade they end up involved in Byzantine politics and after Byzantine politics screws them out of the money that was promised to them so they could pay their debts and fund their crusade the response got a little violent (granted, probably not smart idea to deny paying the massive army right outside your capital's wall that had been promised to be paid).
I recently visited Venice and according to their account of 4th crusade, the relations with Byzantines had been good but soured with time buy t then Byzantines killed some Venetians trading in the capital and they wanted revenge. They got their chance by providing boats to the crusade and parked outside Constantinople, let the army disembark and then refuse them back on unless they took the city and provided payment for the consequential crusade. They got revenge and stole the st. mark lions (their patron saint) that are in the Basilica today. Obviously the Venetian version of events makes them sound like clever manipulators.
There should have been a mention of the 1182 "Massacre of the Latins" in this video. The Western animosity towards Constantinople didn't just come out of nowhere.
They were pretty much, yes. Also, they were the absolute WORST when the situation demanded unity. They betrayed Byzantium 2 times, Hungary lead alliances 3 times and the austrians also 3 times. They continoulus betrayals help the Ottmans rise into power.
The first crusade was a direct response to the conquering of Asia Minor by the Sejulks. It wasn't some vague response to something that happened centuries before.
Morally the Fourth Crusade was horrific, which is why people don't want ot admit that the West did benefit from it, what Venice and the French stole from Constantinople is what triggered the Resistance.
An alternate history for "What if the Fourth Crusade Never Happened the Way it Did?" should be made. It would be cool if one of two different scenarios played out. The first would help the crusaders out, paying off the debt, and conducting the amphibious invasion of Egypt. The second would favor the Byzantines, who managed to pay the crusaders off (probably charging less or having a better offer) and helped in a resurgence of their empire and bringing the East and West Christian faiths closer together. Thoughts?
So, basically, the Crusaders got into a debt they knew they wouldn't be able to pay, so they fought, and failed, and fought, and failed, and fought, and won, but were scammed, so they destroyed Byzantine, but spreaded their forces so much, that they were defeated in their original goal. *slow claps*
Neutral Fellow I think it's more a fictionalized version of the first crusade. I was watching a series on it and am now considering writing a comedy about it.
DEUS VULT! [Sacks Constantinople,and Establishes the Latin Empire,Weakening the Byzantine Empire and making Anatolia more vulnerable to Islamic Conquest]
Innocent III was also the pope who was behind the Albigensian Crusade in southern France, where the Cathars were located. At the time the crusade began, it was not officially a part of France, but King Philip II wanted to get control of the region, so he asked for Innocent's assistance Innocent sent a papal legate, Pierre de Castlenau to the area. He was murdered a few days later, and while no one ever knew who was responsible for his death, the papacy laid the blame on the Cathars. He ordered a crusade, determined to wipe out the Cathars, who were a heretical sect of Christianity, once and for all. The crusade lasted for 36 years, ending on 21 March 1244 at Montségur Castle, when the crusaders took out much of the garrison to a nearby farmhouse, locked them in there, and burned it to the ground, killing some 200 men, women, and children. Innocent was also the pope responsible for the Inquisition through the installation of the Order of St Dominic, the Dominicans. Innocent, not a nice man and a rather corrupt and bloodthirsty pope.
Really great video! I understand it's a faster-paced summary video so I guess it's hard to empathize how Orthodox and the eastern church were only barely Christian in the eyes of Catholics back then. IF my history is correct (so anyone else feel free to correct me) the Orthodox church were heretics which Catholics reluctantly dealt with because they were better than the alternative that would be Muslims invading and potentially restricting trade etc. The reason the pope wasn't angry about the second attack on 'fellow Christians' was the promise of reuniting the east and west churches - effectively making the Byzantium Empire Catholic - or at the very least under the power of the pope - which in turn would help future crusades and so on. So in broader sight, it may seem a lot more stupid than it really was but it was an opportunity to finally bring these long time 'heretics' under the pope's thumb. The real stupidity was the idiot who promised he'd do it - that was effectively the whole reason the attack was justified at all and many of the more pious Crusaders would have been either called back or just left if they were told they were only here for money - and not bringing astray Christians under the popes control. All he had to do was stick to 'Aid in the new crusade' and not include the reuniting churches all he'd have to have done is raise a token army and lead the way for most of the Crusaders - giving him time to pay back the Crusaders over time or simply dicking them over later. But the whole excuse of "We're totally not waiting for money - we want to see you reunite the churches" was a reason for crusaders to stay in place and restlessly ruin everything. So, in the end, the blunder was the fault of the Byzantium Prince and he brought it upon himself with his stupid promises.
I was sorta hoping you'd mention that time the crusaders actually DID invade Egypt with a few hundred men, and then were quickly defeated and forced to go back home because they couldn't just conquer Egypt with a few knights.
This is guy is both right and wrong. the land of Israel was established long, LONG ago before 1948 (around 1000 bc) BUT it was renamed many, MANY times, depends at the time and ruller. During the 1st crusade it was infact called either Palestine, Kingdom of Jerusalem, and more, but it was NOT called Israel. all the info is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_periods_in_the_Palestine_region
+Michael Donnell Its been turkish for 600 years... it would be like germany deciding it wants Bologna back or the Mongols getting their empire back. Its too far in the past and whatever connections you claim to have to that place ARE LUDICROUS!!! Sorry, just had to get that out of my system
For some good - and entertaining - Medieval History content on the Great Courses Plus, I'd highly recommend the two on their by Philip Daileader. I haven't watched these lectures, but I did take several of his classes in college, and he is very fun and knowledgeable.
but he does make a point as the Crusades were initially set up as a response to deal with threats to Christians , after the failures of the first set of Crusades the guys in power went their own way to get themselves rich . Kind of like how Moorish Spain had muslims killing each other for dominance
+Rakitha Peiriz pretty much, that kind of shit is why empire's fall, it happened to the crusader kingdoms, the muslim caliphates and everyone caught in between. it's happening now even.
4th Crusade: When the side quest affects the main story
samfigure89 😂😂😂
samfigure89 underrated
Goddamn! 😂
samfigure89 too true
😂😂😂😂😂
So basically D-day but if the British hired Iceland to build boats, causing Iceland to hire them to attack Greenland, which gets them kicked out of the allies. They then proceeded create a coup to try to overthrow the Soviets, succeeded, then there was another coup, and then overthrew them again, and then failed to take France back.
Jacob Furrow basically
And then that mess opened up the flood gates and allowed Nazi Germany into Britain and America.
Kinda, but i think you should change the "overtrow the soviets" for "overtrow the nazis" cuz then the soviets, their "arch enemy" would grow thanks to it.
Nazi germany couldn't and wouln't be able to occupy america, dude, not in any alternate reality
the2great2bob
It's a hypothetical comparison, not an actual alternate history scenario.
"Falling to the ottomns just two centries later"
You made 200yrs sounds like a week.
Meaning it has been slowly dying, like having a terminal disease caused by someone.
Two centuries feel really short compared to how long the Roman empire existed.
@@debaxer but to human perspective. Its really long
@@aldo2880 certainly, but in this video it was implied that the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade was basically a brief epilogue in the history of the Roman empire.
@@debaxer byzantine empire
We did it Patrick, we saved Christendom!
NKAssassinBlader christianity?
no, Christendom is the correct term.
Hyena not in english
Fuck Christendom, Fuck theism, Fuck dumb people living in the information age. You Fuck
Louis Cyphre Do you need a glass of water?
"Pope Innocent"
Starts a war
Blazar Craft * meanwhile while the Christian's where killing themselves*
Ottoman leader: I don't know general they are doing a good job at killing themselves.*grabs popcorn*
Ottoman general: lets invade Constantinople later.
Ottoman leader: ok but first let's sit back and in joy watching them kill each other first. Then we can kill them
That's wut I think happened when the forth crusade happened on the ottoman side
Blazar Craft هههههههه
It's funny because Innocent III was probably the most powerful Pope in medieval times. One did not acquire that much power and influence over the Kings and Princes of Europe by being a goody two shoes.
Denz is a talented swordsman.
Well he is not so "innocent" now is he.
seems like it wasn't even a crusade as much as dicking around everywhere besides the holy land as a mercenary force.
This quote is so beautiful that I had to screenshot it
ware crusades any different to mercenary? read detailed history you will be shocked ..
pool folk followed for "God" and the rich fooled them for "Gold"
@John Cass wtf is this comment.
@John Cass lmao ok.
@John Cass the liberals put chemicals in the water that turned me gay of course!
"Accidentally allowing a portion of the city to be set on fire"
That's a hell of a blunder.
They installed wildfire on the wrong hall.
Whuuups
If Venice didn't have the catch of only being allowed to settle one city maybe this whole thing could have been avoided. Curse you Sid Meier!
Damn Venice and their Taj Mahals
Ewww Civ pleb , Total War is much better
Fucking casuals who can't play both. Do you even CK2?
total war is awesome but civ is life...
Well that's nice and all but have you guys heard of WARGAME!?!?
When you want to do a crusade, but you forgot how to logistic.
They always forget how to logistic. Without logistic, strategy is pointless.
Nah.. We ll figure it out when we get there. Works everytime. Well.. Almost
That's what i'm asking... didn't the pope or roman empire fund them? Like they have to fund themselves along the way???
@@Annemarie_case143 Yes they were meant to go out and do the crusade solely out out of piety. The only ones who funded the crusaders were all the kings and nobles involved. There were people's crusades, but they lacked money, organization, and any semblance of tactical skill, so they failed miserably and achieved nothing.
@@lordofdarkness4204
They're also known for conducting crimes against humanity, and are very cannibalistic...
If Space Marines had fought the Crusade we wouldn't have these problems.
KnowledgeHub wheres alternate history hubs part 2 to "if Germany has won ww1"
Tuesday and Wednesday latest
KnowledgeHub yay
Indeed Ave Imperator > Deus Vult
Crusades 2: Muslim Boogaloo! Oh my god, I'm dying! 😂
So this was basically christianity punching itself in the face .
yea pretty much, but then they allways did that. Not surprising that they did it this time. But they never topped this screwup.
It’s Christianity throwing a punch at Islam, missing, falling over, and landing on its own sword and cutting off its eastern arm.
+Bookhead714
to be fair, the whole crusade thing was there due to islamic incursions beforehand into vast christian lands
lets not forget that even after muslims take jerusalem, crusade still not a thing until many years later when they've reach the heart of europe
because pope thought that it was a good opportunity to unite the Christiandom/ Western world against one big enemy?
Brandon Tea To be fair though, He is right. The first 3 Crusade were done in response to a foreign religion capture their territory. A fact that many people who criticized the war tend to overlook.
You see those Muslims from Jerusalem? I've heard they have curved swords. Curved. swords.
Lol
😂
Dazer Damn redguards
I used to be a Jannisary like you, then I took a *DEUS VULT TO THE FUCKING KNEE*
What? Someone stole your Deus Vult?
I was just thinking about a meme I saw where there was a guy in knight armor and it said on top "my girlfriend wants me to treat her more like a princess" so then on the bottom it said "so I married her to a random guy to secure an alliance with Poland" lol
It was Armored Skeptic wasn't it?
Crusader Kings to its finest
Darth Guilder and having her brother nail her
Arturo Villarreal after the polish guy died I had to marry her to someone
You can't marry your girlfriend off to someone, you probably mean your daughter.
Should have left It at three, the fourth of anything never works, like a sequel to a trilogy.
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar That‘s Not entirely correct. Do you know the Jurassic Park Trilogy and Jurassic World?
Well, I've been doing a bunch of Great Holy Wars as the Germanics in CK2 and they seem to have all gone well, though I guess an RTS doesn't follow the same rules as reality...
@@Negetive2digit my jesus is AI in CK 2?
What about the prequels being made in Star Wars
@@toxicwaste159 Exactly, Jurassic World sucked
Though to be fair, so did Jurassic Park's 2 and 3
Looks like pope innocent wasent that... Innocent( ill let myself out now)
Lol 69 likes
hahhahahahhaha xd
The Pope that sent a letter to the Crusaders about NOT attacking th city? Not sure about that
The pope excommunicated them (I hope they and the Venetians are still burning in the deepest pits of hell) afterwards.
It wasn't such a bad joke. Let me have a go: " General Crusader my sword has gone blunt from murdering left, right and center!"
" Well have you tried the morning star?" "I don't think reading the paper is going to help!"
1. Great! Free month trial!
2. Oh, I gotta submit credit card info regardless?
3. Bye!
Fernando Ga
oh right, now I remember why I avoided free trials.
Basically they hope you forget about it for a few months and when you check your bank account it will be -£9999999
Fernando Ga
ifkr? that's why i never tried audible too
I don't own a Credit Card.
I have a credit card but theres about £1 on it and i've never used it
Thanks for mentioning Zadar (Zara). Zadar was always a Christian (Catholic) city and by conquering it for Venice, Crusaders reversed the original goal of the Crusades.
Napokon neko iz hrvatske
When you read a little about all crusades accept the first one, it is trully hillarious:)
2nd crusade: Crusaders launch offensive on their only Muslim alllies.
3rd crusade: Emperor of the HRE faling of his horse into the river/ drowned while bathing in it (difftent versions), and after that expedition led by 2 kings that were technically at war with eachother.
4th crusade- Do I even have to say?
5th crusade- at least they tried
6th crusade- not acomplishing anything once again
Bonus:
1101 crusade- Absolute fucking dissaster
child crusade- Who's Idea was That?
The children's crusade was not an actual crusade, the pope did not declear it numbnuts
"Who's idea was that?"
A child's idea.
peoples crusade "killing christians on the way of christ"
People's crusade too
>Christians attack Christendom
>cRuSaDeS dEfEnDeD eUr0pË fR0m mUsLiM aGgReSsIoN :V DeUs vUlT
800 before united, Italy was already switching sides... as merchant republics
@@matteobenfatti8436 ok boomer
@@zeno24f57 I'm 15
@@matteobenfatti8436 Ok zoomer
Superior races are not bound by agreements that do not profit them. You savages should Just pay your debts and avoid being crusaded
I think all of the Crusades involved killing more Christians than Muslims to be honest. Aparrently finding Muslims was a real challenge in Anatolia and the Levant.
The fourth crusade was the only one where Christains were targeted
Gopher, there were also crusades against heretics in Europe (hussites, cathars) and against Eastern Slavs. This shit happend much more than once.
@@Langermar I know but it was mostly centered in the Middle East
Crusader : ungh uhh deus....vult
@@gopher3572 the levant and anatolia were still mostly Christian during the crusades. Especially anatolia which had only fallen a few years before the first crusade. egypt was also majorly coptic christian despite competant muslim rule. Soooooio
MISSION FAILED
friendly fire will not tolarated
Fix your grammar
"We'll get them next time"
5th crusade starts
@@pineappleproductions1696 shut up u rude kid
New update: friendly fire is removed due people abusing it
The crusaders themselves say in their own writings that the reason why they attacked Constantinople was greed and jealously of the greatness of the city.
Venice funded it to keep trade for itself
1. Buy ships from Venice
2. Sail to Egypt
3. ???
4. Profit
When you sack Constantinople many times but when the ottomans conquer it "Oh NO wE NeED To eXPeL ThIs InFIDelS"
Crusades 2: Muslim Boogaloo! Oh my god, I'm dying. 😂
Allahu Ackboogaloo!
I didn't get, can you please explain?
it rhymes...
Edwin Tapia it's an always sunny reference
No its not, the new chardeemacdennis episode is a reference to Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo, which has become a joke on the internet.
So they destroyed a thousand years standing empire for a few ships.....
WOW😮
But them venetian ships were pretty though
1500 years
THAT EMPIRE SAVED EUROPE FROM THE ARABS
Kind of reminds me of that time in the Silmarillion where that elf guy murdered a bunch of other elves to get some ships. It seems like truth in fiction that people kill for boats so that they can go kill some more people but end up screwed over because of bad karma.
@@aflyinghamster8318 unfortunately
This comments section is a bigger shitshow than the actual Fourth Crusade
@Minh Hùng Nguyễn Phạm The rule of coversation
1. Never talk about religion
2. Never mention anything that is or happened on the Balkans@@frenchsoldier8485
and you are the main show
Agreed
1453, worst year of my life.
even though you barely came into the world then.
zakback99 on all levels, except physical, I am Basileia Rhomaion.
Xenon it is it is
Xenon *loses land to the Turks*
1204 was worse.
falling to the ottomans
2 centuries later
Samovar maker a mere
after being split and screwed over like the the former empire was in ruins, even 200 years can't fix that.
'just two centuries later' lol
2 centuries yes. Turks were not coming from a machine popping them up in unendless numbers. It took time for nomadic tirbes actually settle in Roman lands. It was not always by will, in most cases Mongols pushed them. An important part of the "Turkish" population was of former Christian families and it took time to convert and assymilate. There were too many gaps on the map to fill before Constantinople, which was best protected castle city of the time. And finally, even after reaching it, Turks hesitated a long time before attempting to take the city. Basically for they were afraid to trigger a new crusade and also they were aware of the huge political transformation required to control such a huge asset. They were wise to know that "leaving it as it is" also had several benefits. Certainly 4'th Crusade has an impact on Turkish-Byzantine relations. Turks (especially Ottomans) actually cared to provide a certain protection to certain characteristics of Orthodox Christianity. Their church buildings remained generally untouched, their social order, economic status, and religional identity were preserved. This is not what Orthodox Greeks (believed that they) would find under Catholic rule. In most cases the local population under centralized Ottoman rule were peaceful and supporting (even in 1402 after Battle of Ankara when Timur literally disintegrated Ottoman state, Greek part has been more loyal than the Turkish part) always being compared to a potential Catholic ruler. It is not a secret that the Patric himself once said (when Palailogos rulers decided to make their offer to the Pope to join two factions just before fall of Constantinapole) "I prefer to see the turban of Sheik-ul-Islam in Constantinapole instead the hat of a Cardinal". It is realistic to assume that Greek identity would not be preserved as good as to establish a nation state hundreds years later, if the ruler was not a Muslim dinasty. It is also not too far away to the facts, that the 4'th Crusade is sitting right in the middle of that perception.
Thats true. Turks and Muslims at the time were more open to other religions than the European Christians. Only a shame that the bastard young turks and the evil pasha family would destroy that dream.
How in the world do you manage to "accidentally" allow the enemy to burn your city?
They had a lot of Greek Fire stocked.
It's 12:43 AM EST and we're learning about the crusades. DEUS VULT.
HEHEHE I AM A SUPAH FLYING ACE DEUS VULT
HEHEHE I AM A SUPAH FLYING ACE it's 6:55 in the morning. DEUS VULT!!!
When you come back to the comment and forgot that was his name, so you think 'What the hell did I write'
Pope Innocent III declares a war...
Roland Deschain in italian it's Innocenzo, and the word for innocent in italian is innocente not in fact, Innocenzo, which was the original name of the pope! The name doesn't mean anything
While there were *some* temporary successes, and they were obviously not usually as bad as the 4th one, overall the crusades in general were an absolute failure and the most significant contribution they've had on anyone is that they've given countless history students something to laugh about as they learned about the failures of the crusades.
Not really. Sweden, Spain and Portugal benefited greatly.
@@TheRatOnFire_how?
Now, in their defense...the crusaders kind of got ripped off. Technically speaking they did uphold their end of the deal.
blaZzinG_FurY Fucking Byzantium fault. Alexios V for one of the No.1 villains in history. He just... caused so many deaths unnecessarily.
Basically, liars lied and crusaders took it too far? sounds about right.
Pretty sure person Z was actually the rightful heir in this case (first Alexios) He had been overthrown by Alexios the Third (different guy) and the crusaders helped him get his throne back, but then he couldn't pay and Alexios the Fifth (yet another guy named Alexios, because apparently the was the only name in use at the time in Byzantium) overthrew OG Alexios and decided f*ck the Crusaders and the Crusaders were very unhappy they weren't getting paid and decided if they weren't getting gold, they'd take land instead, and everything fell apart.
Alex Parker the problem was, the Alexios that deposed Alexios 3 was more popular. The Crusaders chose the wrong Alexios
are you a sock puppet account?
I keep trying to Deus Vult but this one Muslim keeps kicking my ass.
Fallen Knight of Apollo
No.
true story the first one the was a peasants crusades as most of em were peasants but the Seljuks had their problems as well
Fallen Knight of Apollo Is it the TheSuleyman27?
Fallen Knight of Apollo Sorry but... oh ffs (DW I upvoted)
Ugur Uflaz no...the Mehmet 27
Good job 4. Crusaders, you have totaly deserved the titel “Teamkillers“
Pope innocent the third somehow isnt innocent at all xD
haha
lol
He had 7 illegitimate children
WittyFellow 24 i thought pope arent allowed to have sex at all
Ahmad Raihan Darmawan well they are human
A few comments, because I am a pedantic history student with too much time on his hands:
1) Although Constantinople was certainly one of the greatest cities in the world at the time, it had been undergoing a significant decline since the death of Manuel Komnenos and the infighting of the later 12th century.
2) The call to crusade was made after an appeal came from the byzantine empire, who had in the past 2-3 decades lost most of their empire to the turks thanks to factional infighting. Worth mentioning, I think!
3) The Venetian offer to the crusaders was pretty much an "offer they couldn't refuse", as most of them at that moment were camped at a specifically designated island in the venetian lagoon, where the venetian could easily cut off their supply if they failed to comply.
4) Isaac II should not have eyes. Just saying.
5) Once Alexios V had forbidden the crusaders from entering the city and cutting off their supply, they basically had two choices since most of the ships had sailed back to Venice: Assault the city or plunder their way home through the Balkans. Soldiers need to eat after all.
6) No mention of the Massacre of the Latins, nor the fact that the doge of Venice had been blinded by the byzantines for unknown reasons? Just 20 years prior to the crusade the byzantine emperor Andronikos Komnenos had encouraged the mob to massacre Constantinople's sizable latin(western) population - Around 60 000 thousand of them. The byzantines even sold thousands of latins to the turks as slaves!
But all in all it's a far superior introduction to the 4th crusade compared with many other videos who portray it is a premeditated attack by the evil and greedy westerners. 8/10.
We don't know if the Byzantines actually had a role in Enrico's blindness. An analysis of his signature suggests it was gradual.
Christopher Highseat look at Stefan molyneuxs the truth about the crusades which I found quite interesting.
How dare you spreading lies about the byzantine imperium? They where saints you money grobbing west european. Now help me fight muslims.
Christopher Highseat I'm glad you mentioned these points because I was thinking about several of these throughout the video.
That’s why Venice used them to sack Zeta too?
And then the small portion of muslims in town were fighting alongside with roman army to defend the city
Hello suleiman did you see extra credits series on you
I really enjoyed it and this was a recommendation
But what about the last Crusade???
It was supposed to be the end...
The last crusade hasn't happened yet make Istanbul Constantinople again.
Russians tried to take it back twice, but GB and France intervened. Twice.
ajbolt whats that?? poor balkans' wet dream or what???
Indiana Jones took care of that one
Crusade II: muslim boogaloo. Probably the best comment you've ever made
I didnt get it actually what boogaloo means ???
Moataz Alzhree it’s Like a dance
Lovely video!! Last time I was in Venice and saw those horses on the Basilica of San Marco I thought of the 4th crusade and 1204.
why must you upload so late for marylanders and stuff. it uploaded at 12:30am for me
I live on the edge
KnowledgeHub lol
KnowledgeHub so *edgy*
12:30 pm is just after midday lol
ArcadeDusk10 bitch it's 6:50 AM in Europe
It is kind of of odd isn't it. That's like if the Queen of England woke up tomorrow and was like "well, I think it's time to take back the colonies!"
Well it wasn't like it was unprovoked. The Spanish in Iberia had been fighting a near constant war with the Jihadis for about 400 or so years, and the Eastern Bulwark of Christiandom had lost vast portions of land. Not only that but the Christians and the other infidels in the Caliphate had been oppressed and in some cases outright murdered if they didn't pay the Jizya or belong to the Dhimmi.
A more accurate comparison would probably be that the Nazis took over the entire British Empire at some point leaving only the British isles, then some years later they also take over Scotland and Ireland so the UK in retaliation goes on a quest to liberate the former British Empire.
Actually, that did kinda happen. Once in the 1980's with the Falklands war.
The Falklands never stopped being British colonies though. In any case it was Argentina who wanted them back
Andres Arancio Yes, pardon my lack of research on the matter. It's been a long day for me.
crusade.exe has stopped working
So the Crusades in a Nutshell:
1st: Job Done.
2nd: Dammit, Saladin!
3rd: Almost
4th: Uh-Oh.
5-9th: Why are we still doing this?
Lmao, very accurate
Yep
Remember kids, pay your debts
John Johnson no
cough Venice...
Imagine being 400 years under the Ottoman empire and miss every major european breakthrough. And when you're free you fought in ww1 and ww2! Like it wasn't enough, after that you had a civil war! That was like to be Greece...
Maniak pao13 No, you forgot about the balkan wars.
@@maniakpao13 And then you decide to attack your orthodox christian neighbour Bulgaria cus they got the land you think you deserve more
To this day we Orthodox believers still remember 1204 as if it happened last week.
Great vid, and I know it can't cover everything, but the Byzantines managed to shoot themselves in the leg.
In the mid 11. century, the emperor abolished the thema-system, the basis for their military, thinking they could rely on mercenaries and the troops of the local nobility. But at Manzikert it become clear, that they couldn't, when half of the army led by the rivals of the actual emperor let the seljuks defeat the other half and kill the emperor.
The seljuks deytroyed almost everything in Easter-Anatolia (roads, canals, plantations, bridges) and massacred or sold the people to slavery, making it impossible for the empire to reconquer these land.
(And shortly after the new emperor asked the pope for help, which lead to the crusades)
The 4th crusade was just the last but trully a big nail in the (Eastern) Roman Empire's coffin.
I wish Cody was my U.S history teacher
Also what if the Great Depression never happened
Thanks!
We spent literally 3 months talking about the Crusades and the individual battles in 8th grade. I am so glad we did.
#MakeByzantiumGreatAgain
lol you have the money to pay for the empire to build it up again
Funk Overload And people to convince in the UN
Funk Overload and the army to claim that land?
#MakeIstanbulConstantinopleAgain
1503nemanja I concur
Another embarrassing crusade was the "children's crusade"
Do you mean the ''People's Crusade"?
No, from what I remember it was called the "children's crusade". This group of I say children thought they could accomplish what their elders could not. They were tricked into loading into boats for what they thought would be the holy land but turned out biggest majority of them were sold into slavery
That was a different crusade. It happened before the First one.
robert i heard about that crusade the end to those children was terrible most of them were sold as slaves .kids are stupid but surely innocent
The children’s crusade was technically not a crusade since the pope did not call for it. In fact he told them it was too dangerous and that they should give up and go home, but if you were considerate a crusade it would be the best damn crusade out there
I kind of feel sorry for Venice. They devoted a lot of time, money, and men (15,000 able bodied Venetian men) to the fourth Crusade; and when they propose a plan to make that money back the Pope excommunicates them.
I've always thought it was ironic that someone calling themself Pope Innocent was so gung-ho to manipulate his followers into war.
i've always thought it was ironic that Mary the virgin born a child. However papa is great person he is only one men and you could say himself.
The sad fact is that a Christian from the 1st century would not even recognize "Christianity" of the 4th century onward. It went against everything that Christ taught to his first followers. That is continuing today. "Christianity" of today is far removed from the actual teachings of Jesus. John 13:34,35, Matthew 5:43-46; 26:52 come to mind when we speak of the atrocities of the so-called Christian Crusades and other wars. I expect a lot of disagreement about this but you'll be arguing with the words of Jesus and not me.
@@jaycrume5941Muslims took Christian Roman land in the levant and middle east and destroyed trade in the Mediterranean and enslaved our fellow christans. Saying us christans are evil for retaliating with violence is retarded and just shows that you’re just sucking up to muslims and modernist ideals.
I wouldn’t deny scriptures from the holy bibles but I will say that muslims are 5x worst than any christian. They converted almost all of the lands the did to Islam via conquest and to deny this is false and shows that you haven’t looked into a history book and compared the peaceful spread of Christianity within the Roman Empire while Islam spread through taking Persian and Eastern Roman lands in the middle east and converting these lands to Islam by the sword (Sword of Islam) Aka via warfare and enslaving the people and unleashing hordes of pirates into the Mediterranean to make trade hellish and to enslave and rape Europeans. Islam are way more violent than Christianity and any other religion as they converted all their lands through conquest (Sword of Islam).
If you’re going to say Christianity has become a shadow of its former self when it comes to following the peaceful teachings of Christ, then please also criticize the muslims. Not attacking muslims for spreading by conquest while not even being provoked and attacking christians for taking back their lands is honestly bullshit and you need to stop sucking up the modernist ideas and muslims.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Byzantine_wars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
Pope Urban II sounds like a underground rapper name....
Saladin: Uh.... I am confused.
Well, it seems like this video encourages me to believe that Crusades had nearly nothing to do with religion and was mostly just about obtaining land, money, b*tches and debt. They just placed a shiny cross on there shield and said "for god" to make them look good.
Andrew LaChapelle Pretty much XD
If the 4th crusade was ment to be for religious purposes, the Kingdoms participating would try to fund it themselves XD
That's the thing about religion it's a control tool used to justify this kind of shit.
both sides were doing it too.
"about obtaining land, money, b*tches and debt."
Not really, most who participated in crusades got no land, no money and no bitches, but debts were common, plenty of cases of people in fact giving up bunch of their money or their rights to lands to participate in the crusades (Son of William the Conqueror of England sold his right to the English crown to his little brother in exchange for funding to support the 1st crusade) and even then besides money from pilgrims as well as the religious value of the holy lands the lands obtained in the main crusades wasn't particularly lucrative.
4th crusade was however filled with a mess of issues, cause at the end of the day those ships cost to be built and good will is of limited exchange value to ship builders, so one mess up after another and to hope get those ships to continue on the crusade they end up involved in Byzantine politics and after Byzantine politics screws them out of the money that was promised to them so they could pay their debts and fund their crusade the response got a little violent (granted, probably not smart idea to deny paying the massive army right outside your capital's wall that had been promised to be paid).
Don't act like you know jack shit about several centuries of history in a 5 minute video, Andrew.
Andrew LaChapelle The fourth crusade was basically that
I recently visited Venice and according to their account of 4th crusade, the relations with Byzantines had been good but soured with time buy t then Byzantines killed some Venetians trading in the capital and they wanted revenge. They got their chance by providing boats to the crusade and parked outside Constantinople, let the army disembark and then refuse them back on unless they took the city and provided payment for the consequential crusade. They got revenge and stole the st. mark lions (their patron saint) that are in the Basilica today. Obviously the Venetian version of events makes them sound like clever manipulators.
truly the jews of italy
6:05 was used for the cover of a Death Metal album called "The IVth Crusade" by Bolt Thrower, one of the best death metal albums ever.
0:21 D E V S V V L T
These religious warrior monks want funds, better melt the relics!
Guys, that's not how you play age of empires
There should have been a mention of the 1182 "Massacre of the Latins" in this video. The Western animosity towards Constantinople didn't just come out of nowhere.
So basically Venice was the Jew of fourth crusade?
LUIS CARLOS Olano No.
LUIS CARLOS Olano Jew?
Remember kids; With Sea Jews, You lose.
They were pretty much, yes. Also, they were the absolute WORST when the situation demanded unity. They betrayed Byzantium 2 times, Hungary lead alliances 3 times and the austrians also 3 times. They continoulus betrayals help the Ottmans rise into power.
LUIS CARLOS Olano Sea jews
The fourth crusade is literally the funniest thing ever
Nah it's more like most depressing
Catholic fanatics were feasting on orthodox girls and women in the fourth crusade
@@CCP-Lies idk man, it´s pretty funny to me.
@@blauwbeer556 what's funny exactly ?
The first crusade was a direct response to the conquering of Asia Minor by the Sejulks. It wasn't some vague response to something that happened centuries before.
Morally the Fourth Crusade was horrific, which is why people don't want ot admit that the West did benefit from it, what Venice and the French stole from Constantinople is what triggered the Resistance.
@C. C. A. I meant Renaissance.
Well, the Renaissance saw an influx of MANY ideas, and eventually, even Muslim ones.
Well, Sufi ones, at least.
> reeks of EU4 in the video
> reek of EU4 in the comments
> paradox pls
Lol more like CK2
An alternate history for "What if the Fourth Crusade Never Happened the Way it Did?" should be made. It would be cool if one of two different scenarios played out. The first would help the crusaders out, paying off the debt, and conducting the amphibious invasion of Egypt. The second would favor the Byzantines, who managed to pay the crusaders off (probably charging less or having a better offer) and helped in a resurgence of their empire and bringing the East and West Christian faiths closer together.
Thoughts?
So, basically, the Crusaders got into a debt they knew they wouldn't be able to pay, so they fought, and failed, and fought, and failed, and fought, and won, but were scammed, so they destroyed Byzantine, but spreaded their forces so much, that they were defeated in their original goal.
*slow claps*
András Fogarasi ههههع
Is this knowledge hub or a game of thrones story. Can't tell.
You Know Nothing Meep Ster.
GAZAMAN93X I've watched all 60 episodes of GoT and every knowledge hub video soo
Meep Ster the night is dark and full of terrors.
“Crusades 2: Muslim Boogaloo”
Well done, sir 😂
you should do an episode on the childrens crusade
Ah yes my history teacher mentioned that.
Will Cramer sad tale
Workers CCCP it was a glorius dupster fire
I never actually happened.
It is a series of tales and myths, there is no record of if anywhere outside poetry and fables.
Neutral Fellow I think it's more a fictionalized version of the first crusade. I was watching a series on it and am now considering writing a comedy about it.
DEUS VULT! [Sacks Constantinople,and Establishes the Latin Empire,Weakening the Byzantine Empire and making Anatolia more vulnerable to Islamic Conquest]
Innocent III was also the pope who was behind the Albigensian Crusade in southern France, where the Cathars were located. At the time the crusade began, it was not officially a part of France, but King Philip II wanted to get control of the region, so he asked for Innocent's assistance Innocent sent a papal legate, Pierre de Castlenau to the area. He was murdered a few days later, and while no one ever knew who was responsible for his death, the papacy laid the blame on the Cathars. He ordered a crusade, determined to wipe out the Cathars, who were a heretical sect of Christianity, once and for all. The crusade lasted for 36 years, ending on 21 March 1244 at Montségur Castle, when the crusaders took out much of the garrison to a nearby farmhouse, locked them in there, and burned it to the ground, killing some 200 men, women, and children. Innocent was also the pope responsible for the Inquisition through the installation of the Order of St Dominic, the Dominicans. Innocent, not a nice man and a rather corrupt and bloodthirsty pope.
1:43
*_a legend was born_*
I wish Cody was my history teacher.
I wish i had your channel during middle school/high school years
Really great video!
I understand it's a faster-paced summary video so I guess it's hard to empathize how Orthodox and the eastern church were only barely Christian in the eyes of Catholics back then.
IF my history is correct (so anyone else feel free to correct me) the Orthodox church were heretics which Catholics reluctantly dealt with because they were better than the alternative that would be Muslims invading and potentially restricting trade etc.
The reason the pope wasn't angry about the second attack on 'fellow Christians' was the promise of reuniting the east and west churches - effectively making the Byzantium Empire Catholic - or at the very least under the power of the pope - which in turn would help future crusades and so on.
So in broader sight, it may seem a lot more stupid than it really was but it was an opportunity to finally bring these long time 'heretics' under the pope's thumb. The real stupidity was the idiot who promised he'd do it - that was effectively the whole reason the attack was justified at all and many of the more pious Crusaders would have been either called back or just left if they were told they were only here for money - and not bringing astray Christians under the popes control.
All he had to do was stick to 'Aid in the new crusade' and not include the reuniting churches all he'd have to have done is raise a token army and lead the way for most of the Crusaders - giving him time to pay back the Crusaders over time or simply dicking them over later. But the whole excuse of "We're totally not waiting for money - we want to see you reunite the churches" was a reason for crusaders to stay in place and restlessly ruin everything.
So, in the end, the blunder was the fault of the Byzantium Prince and he brought it upon himself with his stupid promises.
Can you do "What if Byzantine Empire never fell"
I was sorta hoping you'd mention that time the crusaders actually DID invade Egypt with a few hundred men, and then were quickly defeated and forced to go back home because they couldn't just conquer Egypt with a few knights.
02:20
Israel established in 1948 so why did you called it with that name and not with the name of land at the time and now ("palestine")?
why are you guys so fucking stupid? www.history.com/topics/middle-east/history-of-israel
Alfred Vazquez fr what a dumbass
palestine was the roman name
This is guy is both right and wrong.
the land of Israel was established long, LONG ago before 1948 (around 1000 bc)
BUT
it was renamed many, MANY times, depends at the time and ruller.
During the 1st crusade it was infact called either Palestine, Kingdom of Jerusalem, and more, but it was NOT called Israel.
all the info is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_periods_in_the_Palestine_region
Do a "What if the fourth Crusade went to the Holy Land instead of sacking Constantinople"
In light of the Kings and Generals series on the 4th crusade I think this one might need a rewrite
remember when you have a few thousand subs
Issc i am glad to see how well he is doing in such a short period of time
You know me boy I was here when this channel was first created as Geography Hub.
Oooh I member!
***** Yeah it seems like last week...
I can't handle how goofy the crusades were
The most adequate song to describe the Fourth Crusade is Yakety Sax.
4th crusade: when you're looking for a stronghold but you get lost and somehow ended up landing on a lava pool
Can we have another Crusade?
Eiby Velasquez DUES VULT
Eiby Velasquez Deus f*****g Vult
To butcher a few million kids and civilians?
Eye for an eye for an eye for an eye? Jesus give it up you morons
As long as you radical morons shut up too
#MakeConstantinopleGreekAgain
Michael Donnell maga
Michael Donnell It would be hard dude
and then the ottomans came
aly khidr Lol the ottomans are not greeks, they are anatolians/nomadics
+Michael Donnell Its been turkish for 600 years... it would be like germany deciding it wants Bologna back or the Mongols getting their empire back. Its too far in the past and whatever connections you claim to have to that place ARE LUDICROUS!!! Sorry, just had to get that out of my system
I love how everyone hates the fourth crusade
Rule 1 of European politics: do not trust Venice
For some good - and entertaining - Medieval History content on the Great Courses Plus, I'd highly recommend the two on their by Philip Daileader. I haven't watched these lectures, but I did take several of his classes in college, and he is very fun and knowledgeable.
the music made everything so much funnier
great video !
Real Crusades History is probably going to get pissed off.
Nebojsa Galic we'll see
but he does make a point as the Crusades were initially set up as a response to deal with threats to Christians , after the failures of the first set of Crusades the guys in power went their own way to get themselves rich . Kind of like how Moorish Spain had muslims killing each other for dominance
+Rakitha Peiriz
pretty much, that kind of shit is why empire's fall, it happened to the crusader kingdoms, the muslim caliphates and everyone caught in between.
it's happening now even.
Yeah, cuz he really seems to love the murdering scum of the Crusaders
The 4th Crusade is one of my favorite F'd up historical events.
Ez win for the ottomans. Very very cool crusaders.
The best thing about this channel are the sporadic sunny references
Pope Innocent? Really? You might as well call yourself "Pope 100% Not a Criminal".
In the words of Robbie Rotten (May he rest in peace):
"WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?!"
0:15 Those symbols in the middle look awfully familiar.