The Crusades were justified

Very well. To ease reading, I will break down my counter-arguments and arguments as well. 1. "Unprovoked attack" Romans indeed were expansive. However, unlike Muslims, the Roman expansionism was not motivated by religion. The "Muslim crusades" also known as "Jihad" started a few years after the death of prophet Muhammad. You argued that Muslims conquered land from Syria, Egypt and Israel. What you conveniently forgot was that after 150 years of crusading, in 750 ad, the Muslim expansion stretched as far as Spain. Having conquered half of modern-day Spain, they were practically knocking on Rome's door considering the starting point of Middle-East. Christianity had lost two-thirds of its land to Muslims, in just 150 years. Islam is (or was) an expansive religion, as Muhammad himself launched a crusade to Christian city of Tabuk, signaling the start for generations of aggressive expansionism. [1] Due to these facts, Christianity was justified to feel itself threatened. Countless Christian cities were sacked, and even though the conquering had stopped for a while, Islamic religion always held the intention to expand. With the enemy so close at the capital of Christianity, the religion was but one war away from complete annihilation. 2. The trigger for Christian Crusades Another important trigger for the crusades is the Muslim campaign to eradicate Christian places of worship in Palestinian and Egyptian areas during the beginning of Second Millennia. This campaign of annihilation culminated to the complete destruction of Church of the Holy Sepulcher, by the hands of the mad Muslim king Al-Hakim bi-amr Allah in 1009 [2]. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was the most holy place for Christianity, and the people in the West were shocked to see how little Muslim leaders actually respected the Christian religion. It was taken as a direct attack against Christian faith, and the people of the West sought to rescue the little of what had remained of the church. About the false propaganda; it can hardly be used as an argument against Crusades. False propaganda has always been an essential part of warfare, non-religious and religious wars alike. 3. Justness of the cause, not the war As the Muslims had launched organized destruction of Christian holy sites, the Crusaders indeed did have reason to defend the sacred cities from Muslims. During the middle ages, pilgrimage was a major part of religion. It would not be uncommon for a peasant to sell all of his possessions to be able to afford a pilgrimage to the Holy City of Jerusalem. Even today, among Hindus and Muslims for example, it's the most important journey of their lives to take a pilgrimage. But in 1000s, with the Muslims destroying those very destinations of pilgrimage, the heart of Christianity was in danger. With the Crusaders securing these holy cities, the safety of the pilgrims was finally ensured. You argue that "most of [crusade] leaders were corrupt and ambitious". First of all, it's just bending the truth saying that "most" of the leaders were corrupt. I cannot deny that argument, nor can I confirm it, since it's impossible to state that "most" were this or that without a clear list. True, there were those who clearly did anything for their own ambitions, but so it is in all wars. And was the cause for Crusades just or not, they were still wars fought by people. As in all wars, there are evil men on both sides. Nor will I try to deny the massacres committed by the Crusaders. Genocides they were not, as they weren't organized killings aimed to eradicate a single ethnic group, but rather a series of bloodthirsty acts committed in the flushes of victory. However, this was the aftermath of the Crusades. The justification for the Crusades comes from the original intentions, not the aftermath from people blinded by violence. Even though the People's Crusade was called a Crusade, it was not one. It was initiated by a sole priest (Peter the Hermit), not the Pope. People's crusade was an unfortunate backlash of the escalating political tensions between Christians and Jews. Furthermore, the Fourth Crusade was the reason there were no more crusades. The Crusades were done to defend the holy sites of Christianity. The regaining of Jerusalem gave life to the Christian religion which was at risk by the Muslims. They ensured the safety of holy sites and encouraged pilgrims to make the important journey to Jerusalem. The Crusades showed people that Christian God was a God worth fighting and dying for, and warmed the religion again to last for ages. SOURCES: [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...