I'm going to talk about John Green's crusade video
Right away I'd say Green's target audience has not romantized the Crusades. The view of the Crusaders ie highly polarized, and his target auidence likely does not have a positive view of the Crusaders. Most of his viewers are likely left leaning teenagers who lack any real education in the humanities. In my experience these people think the Crusaders were ruthless savages who indiscrimindetly slaughtered innocent Muslims for their God.
>Pope Urban's main motivation for calling the Crsuades was mending the schism. (Time 1:50)
Pope Urban certainly wanted to expand the sphere of Catholic influence in the middle east, but he didn't see the Crusade as a tool to mend the schism. At the time, Urban was trying to mend tensions with Constantinople, and trying to force Papal authority onto the Byzantines would have destroyed all of his work. In fact, he chose Bishop Adhemar to lead the expedition because Bishop Adhemar was very diplomatic in his correspondance with the Byzantines. Adhemar himself supported the idea of detente between the Catholic church and the Orthodox one. Pope Urban himself loathed the Schism which had taken place a few decades earlier, but in his speeches he called the Orthodox and Catholic peoples brothers. (Source: Thomas Asbridge – The First Crusade pg 92)
The only man who saw the Frist Crusade as a way to end the Great Schism was Bohemond I of Antioch
who proposed the Crusaders . Before leaving on the journey Bohemond was known to preach in French churches, advocating French knights to join him in a war against the Byzantine empire (source: The First Crusaders by Johnathan Riley-Smith, pg 137)
>To the Crusaders they were taking up arms to protect Christ and his Kingdom
I'm surprised he didn't mention the Crusaders also took up arms as a way to ensure their own salvation, as Green just mentioned it minutes before. The Crusaders were mainly noble men, who were well aware their secular duties of war and attaining wealth was in contrast to what Jesus' preached. They were afraid of the after life, and saw the Crusades as a way to earn pennence for their sins. Guibert of Nogent wrote this:
“God has instituted in our time holy wars so that the order of knights might find a new way of gaining salvation. And so they are not forced to abandon secular affairs completely by choosing the monastic life, or any religious profession as used to be the custom, but can attain some measure of God's grace while persuing their own careers.
Honestly, I was surprised he actually presented the crusaders as genuinely faithful christians, not as colonialists or barbaric zealots.
Not to say the show doesn't have an obvious leftist bent
Christ. I remember back in high school when I took world history; the topic of the crusades was presented in a neutral stance. This was about 5-6 yeas ago. What happened? History use to be about analyzing then past with full honestly and accuracy.
Why the fuck did that faggot just casually call Philip Augustus a coward?
>Most of his viewers are likely left leaning teenagers who lack any real education in the humanities. In my experience these people think the Crusaders were ruthless savages who indiscrimindetly slaughtered innocent Muslims for their God.
I can confirm. Before I completely cut from them I was apart of a group on Facebook called Australian Nerdfighters. That's what all the supporters of John Green call themselves. The absolute thickest cesspool of the young Left you'll ever find, in Australia at least.
I specifically remember a young lady-man-it thing who started a crowdfund to get a sex change. Basically no one donated though so that was fun.
But I'm rambling. Just got a bit of a grudge against the whole lot of them.
>I'm surprised he didn't mention the Crusaders also took up arms as a way to ensure their own salvation, as Green just mentioned it minutes before. The Crusaders were mainly noble men, who were well aware their secular duties of war and attaining wealth was in contrast to what Jesus' preached. They were afraid of the after life, and saw the Crusades as a way to earn pennence for their sins. Guibert of Nogent wrote this:
That's funny, one of the most common stated reasons for crusading was for second sons to get a chance to win a land of their own that would have been remarkably hard to obtain in feudally saturated (= uncapable to economically support more landed knights) France and Germany.
John Green is a blatant distotionist when he claims the Crusades where the cause of todays Islamic world uphevals. Did he forget the moors almost got into France if it wasn't for the Battle of Tours that saved Europe?
>History use to be about analyzing then past with full honestly and accuracy.
When I went to school (a decade ago), our history textbooks tended to have very American exceptionalist leanings where applicable and pro-western leanings when not.
Not that I'd blame it entirely on explicit bias, but implicit biases color history too.
>When I went to school
School history is almost expected to be propaganda it's arguably a good way to instill patriotism and civic spirit to youths. I'd be surprised to hear of someone not having had experiences of very clearly biased scholastic historical education. The bias only fall at the university level.
This is not to say that there's no implicit bias whatsoever in history, but sure as shit the school system is not a good example of historical studies.
ITT: butt devastated conservatives get assmongled that the history guy kiddies like diverges outside of pure western historical perspective because "muh European expansionism" is all they ever learned in school
Yeah, the guy I was replying to was talking about highschool world history. University-level history is an eye-opener.
>it's arguably a good way to instill patriotism and civic spirit to youths
Instilling patriotism at the cost of instilling ignorance is probably a bad trade off, considering high school history is the extent of most peoples' exposure to the subject.