Is Real Crusades History credible?

Yes.

But he has a pro-Crusader bias, which is ok considering all other modern sources have an anti-Crusader bias.

yes

Ongoing PhD in medieval history, I knew about him back in octochans boards and did listened to some of his videos.

He cherry picks his sources and basically fits evidence into his opinion rather than looking at all the evidence and forming his opinion from them. There are certain things he is absolutely correct, but thats due to the subject. For Franks-Latins its basically "they dindu nuffin, they go to church err sunda, they good bois". Now he does give leeway to some evidence to pretend fairness but ignores a lot of points if they stood against his religious right wing bias. I think he does bad and non academic history, as long as he doesn't try to publish I'm okay with him though. Its for religious right wing by religious right wing and inb4 someone says "muh leftist bias in academia" there are plenty of Christian and-or Conservative historians but they don't cherrypick as much as he does and their arguments are examined and criticized by others.

I do believe bias is inevitable, If you are a conservative christian by all means watch his videos, I did wasted my time in the pass and posted 2-3 long text walls (including some translations that I had to do from latin) but sadly I'm busy now and lost my autistic enthusiasm to refute youtubers. But If you think he is a credible source you are wrong.

He is not a historian, he is just a guy who reads and makes videos. Thats about it

Its embarrassing. I listened to a show a while back, i heard he was anti muslim but i thought it was lefties being retards again.

Nope, there is absolutely no effort to give the period a fair shake. Currently pop history is anti crusade but he went so far the other way he comes across as a racist who is a shitty historian. Literally failing history 101 stuff.

Of fucking course.

Sure, history students who've been brainwashed by cultural marxist anti-crusader modern history books will tell you otherwise. But RCH uses real fucking primary sources which proves he's correct.

Leftards just can't accept their precious Muslims aren't good boys.

Honestly I'd say he's a better source than modern historians, mainly because he isn't a brainwashed sheeple.

> lefties being retards again.

lefties are pro-muslim

the multicultural paradise Al-Andalus is a historical revisionism propaganda spread by lefties
Al-Andalus was the ISIS of medieval period

>doesn't know latin-syriac-greek-arabic
>uses primary sources

tbqh, everyone was isis tier in medieval period, Go deny the divinity of christ/existance of allah etc and see what they do to you.

>I'm busy now and lost my autistic enthusiasm to refute youtubers

Weirdly enough you proceed to post this on an anonymous image board where there is no way to actually fucking know if you are a PhD. So whats the point.

Not the Christians. Infact, torture and illegal killing was so rare, there wasn't even a fucking word for it

nice falacy faggot
you can't analyse historical periods with modern standards
but comparing christian western europe with the rest of the world and you see that it was far better

What you mean it was better by modern standards?

are you retarded?

By what standards was Christian Europe better?

Its just a caveat. I'm a conservative and was a Christian until a year ago. Back in /christian/ I posted a very long and detailed examination of 2 of his videos, If there is an archive of octo go search realcrusadeshistory I'm sure you will stumble upon them. Having a PhD does not make me an authority but I must say that I know the historical method more than he does, He lacks both formative and language training. Their defendants hide behind "muh leftist academia" but most of them never step into a history department and talk out of their asses. Ancient-Medieval era Historians are not as liberal dominated as you think it is. But don't take my word for it, If you are a Christian Conservative go watch him. Its a waste of time to go to library, print out the ecclesiastical correspondence, translate it, post it on octochan only to be called a brainwashed liberal.

I still call myself a conservative (with a lower case c, charlesmurray style) and was called a jew by a lot of muslims when I tried to corrected them. Just because leftists-marxists-feminists-muslims push their bias does not mean that I should give other a leeway. The guy highly cherry picks his sources and secondary sources, for example he did presented a noticeable book by a scholar as evidence but when I searched it I found that it received criticism from later scholars on certain subject. Now whether the first guy is right or wrong is another thing, but what he does is bad sport, obfuscation, giving minor arguments against his view to present "fair&balance" delusion.

One should not learn his history from layman youtubers that goes for John Green (b.a. doesnt make you a historian), that goes for the extrashittyvoicecredit. That goes for me also, but not many will cross examine the sources and try to find evidence he either willingly or unwillingly discarded. Its just a caveat nothing more nothing less, as you said I'm just warning you to thread carefully in an uzbekistani miniature board.

>was a Christian

fedora detected

Yes
/thread

No, fedoras nowadays are reverting back to christianity, mostly for aesthetic's sake.

The "dawkins-atheist LE SCIENCE libertarian redditor who obsesses over vikings" evolved into the "christfag FUCK NIGGERS alt-right /pol/ack who obsesses over crusaders" somewhere in 2014

>alt-right
>a meme created by tumblr to stigmatize young conservatives

your use of it doesn't do you any good

Yes, but I did examined his videos while I was a Christian, back around late 2015.In any case that irrelevant, hardly anyone will become an atheist after they studied the era of the Crusades. I became an atheist later on. My opinion of his work remained the same.

Again it is just a caveat, if you are seriously curious about his work, do check the sources he cites moreover try to detect his Post hoc ergo propter hoc
I'm not that poster (second caveat)

We're on THE website where a huge portion of alt-right thought is produced in the first place (at least for the rank-and-file; stuff like Moldbug is too dense for teenagers after all) and you're saying it doesn't exist.

I think this applies to anyone who claims to tell the truth or reality.

>alt-right thought

yes, alt-right is tumble and reddit taking trolls seriously
it's like believing there are actual libertarians on 4chin, who would gladly live in an unregulated world where you'd have to pay a kidney to browse the web

>yes, alt-right is tumble and reddit taking trolls seriously

Ah, so we're going with the "/pol/ is just satire [but they're still right]" thing, gotcha.

>/pol/ is all the same

eww lad

This is a whole lot of fucking projecting you're doing.

/pol/ is confused kids from broken familes and mudslimes who are convinced that they are white/

the biggest cancer in imageboards is now leftypol

no it isn't. People who post ebin memes to cap it on r/Veeky Forums are the cancer.

What about all the guests he brings on with the title Dr.? Would those videos be worth watching?

His inaccuracies of Kingdom of Heaven videos were good I thought.

>all other modern sources have an anti-Crusader bias

what?

>He lacks both formative and language training. Their defendants hide behind "muh leftist academia" but most of them never step into a history department and talk out of their asses. Ancient-Medieval era Historians are not as liberal dominated as you think it is. But don't take my word for it, If you are a Christian Conservative go watch him. Its a waste of time to go to library, print out the ecclesiastical correspondence, translate it, post it on octochan only to be called a brainwashed liberal.

this