Is this channel bullshit or not? I need to know it because i will use some of his videos as source for a project work.
https://www.youtube.com/user/RealCrusadeHistory
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/30oi83/what_is_the_consensus_on_real_crusades_history/
This may help
>>1357343
Not OP but IIRC that doesn't really say much. He essentially says he's biased but doesn't do anything to actually prove RCH wrong.
>>1357302
I dunno. He has real historians on the show with him and he uses legit historical sources. How valid any of these are? I don't know, really. It would be fun if somone did a point by point debuking of his videos instead of just screaming about islamophobia.
>>1357343
>>1357343
>>1357370
>Website fanboyism
>>1357365
OP here, thank you for the information, i will dig into his channel then.
>>1357365
>He essentially says he's biased but doesn't do anything to actually prove RCH wrong.
These are two different goals. To be biased doesn't mean to be factually inaccurate, but that moral, political, or simply personal conclusions that are made about a subject are done so in the context of a strong opinion towards the subject that may or may not have anything to do with the subject itself.
If you want to use it as a source for whatever reason, a useful rule of thumb here is to focus on the names and dates and general timeline being presented while taking any conclusions he makes about motivations, beliefs, morality, and so on with caution.
>>1357302
He does have a bias, but I honestly don't mind it so much because he backs it with information. His actual info on the crusaders is spot on with citations, historians, and primary sources, but don't always trust some of the shit on islam and muslims. Just use his sources and talks with the historians, you can't really go wrong with those especially in an actual academic context. RCH is still a youtube historian, but he does tend to be informed so do as you will with that.
Like what >>1357806 said
>>1357343
This is a bad link, there are only two "historians" and one doesn't even have the medieval period correct (450 to 1100 what the fuck?). And the moderator raises a good point but then shits on it by saying primary sources "should never be seen as representative of what actually happened" which, as far as my professor told me and had us do, is wrong. There's a reason we don't particularly like reddit here.
>>1357919
>>1357806 here
I would add that I wouldn't trust any RCH videos that have a question to answer ('Did the Crusades Save Europe?') or which are attempts to criticize popular media or other Youtube series ('Extra Credits: DEBUNKED'). These are necessarily videos where he is starting out with an opinion, or attacking another opinion, and ends up looking a lot of objectivity and becomes selective when he starts quoting sources.
>primary sources "should never be seen as representative of what actually happened"
My professors' policies were always something like 'primary sources are almost never representative of what you think actually happened,' which to me seems like the number one problem with RCH, /r/AskHistorians, and most places where the phrase 'but he quotes primary sources' turns up a lot.
>>1357969
>and ends up looking
lacking*
