Is he a tad biased?
Yeah ever so slightly
>>3169036
Balances out the bullshit Muslims dindu nuffin meme.
>>3169119
so yes?
>>3169036
A bit, but not to the point where it impairs the flow of information or anything. He tends to romanticize the crusaders' side but it isn't distracting
>>3169036
no, just misinformed
>>3169155
Does he at least bring up the Byzantine perspective
>>3169119
Things that don't happen
>>3169353
He doesn't exactly linger on it, but he doesn't ignore it either. It's hard to explain, I recommend watching the 1st Crusade miniseries thing, if you enjoy the presentation of it then you'll enjoy the channel
basically the right-wing equivalent to John Green
>>3169036
He is biased but that's not a bad thing in itself. It's good to see various viewpoints on history if you are interested in it. Just read material and derive your own conclusions, the more material the better as you can use them against each other as a metric.
He's a joke
>>3169036
CRUSADERS DINDU NUFFIN THEY WUZ GUD BOIS SAVING EUROPE FROM HORDES OF MUSLIM BARBARIANS N SHIT
What are the best books on the crusades?
>>3169036
>he
Pretty sure there are multiple Academics on that channel.
>>3174076
http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/1486.html
This is my personal favourite, Fulcher is the least biased (towards a specific noble) imo and this has all the relevant perspectives from the crusaders' sides (all primary sources with a little background)
>>3175074
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520052246
This one is the polar opposite, it covers the majority of the crusades with Arab primary sources. Both of them have little to no interference by the editor and really let you experience the crusade(s) from the perspectives of those involved, biases of the combatants and all (I especially enjoy when the Arab sources insult the Crusading nobles constantly it's quite entertaining)