Why The Crusades Were Awesome, Actually
Credibility score: 35/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "Why The Crusades Were Awesome, Actually" and rated it 35/100 for credibility (a BS score of 65/100 — low credibility), on 2026-07-16. Its weakest claim — "Claims the standard story is 'crazy Christians attacked peaceful Muslims for no reason' — straw man" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 24 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 24 claims analyzed: 10 scored under 40, 14 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Kingdom of Heaven shows Crusaders as bloodthirsty — sets up 'fair portrayal' expectation only to knock it down — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:00
Opens by promising nuance then immediately slams the film for bias — emotional framing before any evidence appears 😈
Why this score: The speaker builds a 'you'd expect fairness' straw man about Hollywood then delivers the emotional payoff that the movie is one-sided. No actual film analysis yet, just the setup for outrage. Classic emotional button — gets the audience nodding along before facts arrive.
Original quote: “in 2005 the film Kingdom of Heaven was released to the world the film takes place during the major historical conflict between the Christian world and the Islamic world that we today call the Crusades beginning in 1096 Catholic Europeans embarked on quests to retake the holy land and spread the…”
Claims the standard story is 'crazy Christians attacked peaceful Muslims for no reason' — straw man — Straw Man (20/100)
At 1:16
Builds a cartoon version of the 'standard narrative' — Christians randomly attacking enlightened Muslims — then knocks it down.
Why this score: By reducing centuries of prior Islamic conquests, raids, and control of formerly Christian lands into 'just because they could,' the speaker creates an easy target that no serious historian actually defends.
Original quote: “in all of these cases the same narrative is presented one day crazy Christians decided to attack the peaceful and enlightened Islamic world just because they could”
Islam uniquely kept slavery alive to this day — cherry-picked history as moral proof — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 2:27
Singles out Islamic slavery as eternal while skipping the same practice across Christian, Roman, and African societies for centuries. 🍒
Why this score: The move is selective outrage: treat one civilization's expansion as uniquely evil by freezing the timeline at its worst moments and erasing everyone else's parallel record. The 25-year Byzantine-Sassanid war and the dhimmi tax get weaponized as the sole context, but the same conquest-and-tax pattern existed everywhere else too. By naming only Islamic slavery as ongoing, the speaker manufactures a one-sided moral ledger.
Original quote: “as Muslim lands but that was not always the case it all began when Christianity spread far and wide after being legalized by Emperor Constantine the Great with the Edict of Milan this led to the christianization of both the Western and Eastern Roman Empire even as the western part of the empire…”
Islamic policies alone caused Christian decline — omits conquest, taxes, and wars — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:28
Blames 'Islamic policies' for the shrink while skipping the Arab conquests and jizya that actually did the work.
Why this score: The decline happened after military conquests and centuries of discriminatory taxation and legal inferiority; treating the outcome as just 'policies' hides the violence that created the conditions.
Original quote: “their churches were often shut down because of Islamic policies over the centuries Christianity in the Middle East and North Africa shrunk from a large majority to a tiny minority but it actually gets even worse”
Islamic piracy alone crashed Europe for 400 years — erases Viking, Byzantine, and internal factors — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:55
Puts the entire Mediterranean collapse on Muslim pirates while ignoring Vikings, civil wars, and the actual timeline of trade.
Why this score: Trade didn't vanish overnight in 600; it shifted, recovered in places, and was hit by multiple actors. Pinning 400 years of 'misery' on one source is selective history dressed as the total picture.
Original quote: “Islamic piracy brought all of this to an end from bases in North Africa and the Middle East they turned the Mediterranean into an unsafe hell hole this crashed the European economy and made Europe a miserable place for Commerce for almost 400 years”
Europe's Dark Ages were caused by Islam's Golden Age — direct causal claim with zero receipts — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 5:12
Calls it 'the true reason' like it's settled fact when historians still argue about what even counts as the Dark Ages.
Why this score: The label 'Dark Ages' itself is contested and multi-causal; linking it directly to Islamic prosperity as the single driver is a bold causal leap with no data shown.
Original quote: “Islam's so-called Golden Age came at Europe and Christianity's expense this is the true reason that many consider the year's 600 A.D to 1000 A.D a dark age for Europe”
846 Rome raid as the first crusade trigger — treats one raid as the origin story — Cherry-Picked (45/100)
At 5:37
Starts the clock at 846 like nothing happened before, ignoring centuries of earlier raids and wars on both sides.
Why this score: The Mediterranean saw constant raiding long before 846; picking this single incident as the spark while skipping the prior 200+ years makes the 'first rumblings' framing look cleaner than history actually is.
Original quote: “an Arabic expedition to Sicily sailed up the Tiber River and sacked Saint Peters in Rome a cyanide in France called for Chris sovereigns to Rally against the enemies of Christ”
Cordoba's expansion as pure aggression — erases the back-and-forth of prior conquests — Missing Context (45/100)
At 5:58
Presents the northern push as unprovoked while the caliphate itself sat on land taken from Christian kingdoms decades earlier.
Why this score: Iberia changed hands multiple times; starting the story at the moment Muslims expand north skips the original conquest that put them there in the first place.
Original quote: “in the west the Islamic caliphate of Cordoba and Iberia began expanding North it conquered burned and enslaved its way through multiple Christian cities including Barcelona and Leon”
Seljuk arrival framed as sudden threat — skips prior Byzantine-Seljuk relations and internal Christian wars — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:21
Drops the Seljuks into Anatolia like they appeared from nowhere, ignoring decades of alliances, raids, and Byzantine infighting.
Why this score: The Seljuks didn't just 'migrate in'; they were invited, fought as mercenaries, and took advantage of Byzantine civil wars. The clean 'sudden conquest' story leaves out the messy prelude.
Original quote: “in the late 900s a Central Asian Muslim group called the seljuk Turks began migrating into Anatolia in 1064 they completely conquered Armenia”
Islam rendered Armenian homeland unlivable — loaded language framing conquest as total erasure — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 6:43
Calls the region 'unlivable' after Turkish conquest — emotional word doing the heavy lifting, not the evidence.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'unlivable' to imply total destruction and expulsion, yet the transcript itself notes the population migrated and formed a new kingdom, not that the land became uninhabitable. This framing turns military conquest into existential erasure without acknowledging survival and adaptation.
Original quote: “Islam had made the Armenian Homeland unlivable”
Turkish conquests larger than France in 35 years — cherry-picked scale without context of prior Byzantine holdings — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 7:22
Throws out 'larger than France' to dramatize the threat — ignores how much of that territory was already contested or recently lost by Byzantium.
Why this score: The comparison sounds massive, but without baseline data on what the Byzantine Empire controlled before the Seljuks arrived or how fragmented control already was in Anatolia, the number becomes a rhetorical weapon rather than a neutral measurement. It's selective emphasis on the biggest-sounding figure.
Original quote: “Turks had seized control of Christian territories larger than the entire region of France”
Muslims as enemies of Christ who targeted non-combatants — missing context on mutual medieval warfare practices — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:22
Presents Muslim actions as uniquely barbaric while the transcript omits that enslavement and raids on civilians were standard across Christian and Muslim forces in the period.
Why this score: The speaker lists these practices as the specific reason for the Crusades' necessity, yet the same transcript earlier describes the geopolitical threat without noting that both sides routinely practiced slavery, hostage-taking, and attacks on civilian populations. The framing singles out one side's behavior as the decisive moral factor.
Original quote: “Muslims were enemies of Christ they waged Wars against non-combatants and enslaved women and children”
Muslims enslaved women/children, conquered Iberia/Anatolia, threatened Europe — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:27
Lists conquests as one unbroken horror — skips that Iberia was taken in 711, Anatolia much later, and most of Europe never faced direct threat.
Why this score: Paints seven centuries of separate events as one continuous menace to sell the idea that the Crusades were an obvious, unified response. The timeline collapse makes the threat look fresher and more immediate than it was.
Original quote: “enslaved women and children and they had conquered all of Iberia Anatolia and threatened France and Italy”
Pope Urban framed it as defense of Eastern Christians against heathens — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 9:19
Uses 'brethren in urgent need' and 'heathens' to trigger tribal loyalty and fear — classic call-to-arms language.
Why this score: The speech is quoted directly, so the framing is authentic to the source. The emotional weight is doing the heavy lifting: 'urgent,' 'heathens,' and 'devastated' push the audience toward action before any strategic details are given.
Original quote: “your brethren who live in the East are in urgent need of your help and you must hasten to give them the aid which has been promised them the heathens have killed many and they have destroyed churches and devastated the Greek Empire”
Pope claims allowing Muslims to continue means wider attacks on all Christians — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 9:31
Presents only two choices: crusade now or watch all Christendom fall. Ignores diplomacy, alliances, or containment options that existed.
Why this score: Classic false dilemma — either you pick up the sword or you are complicit in the destruction of the faith. The speech deliberately erases any middle path to make hesitation look like betrayal.
Original quote: “if you permit them to continue with impunity the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them on this account I or rather the Lord beseech you”
Crusades as unique multinational unity — historical exaggeration — Missing Context (45/100)
At 10:39
Calls it 'entirely unique in human history' — ignores Mongol, Islamic, and Roman empires doing the same thing centuries earlier.
Why this score: Speaker presents Christian unity as unprecedented when similar large-scale religious and imperial coalitions existed long before. The 'never happened before' framing drops the comparative context that makes the claim ordinary rather than miraculous.
Original quote: “it's really something entirely unique in human history the Catholic church had created a multinational Network that United Europeans of all stripes and ethnicities under a common Faith”
Catholicism alone achieved what no other religion could — selective history — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 10:50
Ignores the Islamic conquests and the Caliphates that united far more territory and peoples under one faith before and after.
Why this score: By limiting the comparison to 'hundreds of other religions' failing, the speaker erases the massive, successful religious unifications that actually happened on a bigger scale. It's cherry-picking the failures to make the Christian example look singular.
Original quote: “so many different Europeans being united by one religion and engaging in a civilization-wide struggle had not happened before and has not happened since”
Secular world hates Crusades because they worked — motive speculation — Straw Man (20/100)
At 11:05
Frames criticism as jealousy of success instead of the actual complaints: massacres, forced conversions, and broken treaties.
Why this score: The speaker invents a motive — secular resentment of Christian achievement — that no serious historian uses. Real critiques target the documented atrocities, not some supposed fear of unity.
Original quote: “perhaps this is why our modern secular system demonizes the Crusades”
First Crusade as unqualified success — glosses over the sack of Jerusalem — Missing Context (45/100)
At 11:43
Calls it a 'roaring success' while skipping the wholesale slaughter of civilians once Jerusalem fell.
Why this score: Victory in battle doesn't erase the mass killing of non-combatants that followed. The 'success' label only works if you ignore the body count that made contemporaries horrified even by medieval standards.
Original quote: “the First Crusade could really only be qualified as a roaring success Crusaders defeated almost every Muslim army they encountered and captured Jerusalem”
Sixth Crusade as bloodless diplomatic win — omits the prior violence — Missing Context (45/100)
At 12:04
Praises the peaceful handover while ignoring that Jerusalem was only lost again because of earlier Crusader failures and broken agreements.
Why this score: The 'no blood spilled' line sounds clean until you remember the cycle of conquest and reconquest that made diplomacy necessary in the first place. It's celebrating the bandage while pretending the wound didn't happen.
Original quote: “one Crusade I personally like was the sixth Crusade Jerusalem had fallen back into Muslim hands but they had started to fight each other in a civil war”
Crusades preserved Christianity — decline only began after popes stopped calling them — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 13:20
Pins secularization on the end of papal crusade calls like that's the causal switch. Correlation treated as causation.
Why this score: The speaker equates 'no more crusades' with 'Christianity weakened' while ignoring the Reformation, Enlightenment, industrialization, and two world wars. The timing is real; the single-cause story is not.
Original quote: “Europe was Christian when the Crusades were launched and it's still majority Christian today one thousand years later although it is secularizing due to modernist ideologies ironically it's only after the pope lost his power to call Crusades that Christianity started to decline in Europe”
Crusades succeeded because Europe stayed Christian — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 13:20
Equates 'still Christian' with 'Crusades worked' — treats 1000 years of separate history as proof of a single campaign. 💀
Why this score: Survival of Christianity over a millennium isn't evidence the Crusades caused it. The logic flattens centuries of Reformation, secularization, and politics into one victory lap.
Original quote: “Europe was Christian when the Crusades were launched and it's still majority Christian today one thousand years later”
Crusades kept Europe Christian for 1000 years, decline only after popes stopped calling them — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 13:20
Pins secularization on the lack of crusades — equates military expeditions with the survival of an entire religion.
Why this score: The move treats complex historical shifts (Reformation, Enlightenment, industrialization, wars, philosophy) as if they were just the pope losing his army button. That's not causation, that's a single variable getting all the credit while everything else gets erased.
Original quote: “Europe was Christian when the Crusades were launched and it's still majority Christian today one thousand years later although it is secularizing due to modernist ideologies ironically it's only after the pope lost his power to call Crusades that Christianity started to decline in Europe”
Christianity declined only after popes stopped calling Crusades — causal fairy tale — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 13:28
Blames secularization on the loss of papal crusade-calling power. That's not history, that's fan fiction with a cross. 😈
Why this score: The speaker equates the end of papal military calls with the start of Christianity's decline, treating two unrelated timelines as cause and effect. The actual drivers of secularization (Reformation, scientific revolution, nationalism, liberalism) get erased so the loss of crusade authority can be cast as the decisive blow.
Original quote: “ironically it's only after the pope lost his power to call Crusades that Christianity started to decline in Europe but when we look back at these events history shows it's not a shameful chapter of Catholic history but the total opposite”
See the full analysis with timestamps →