The Crusades were justified

"The religious motivation matters because of the concept of this argument. Romans indeed were expansive, but they did not force their religion upon the conquered people." Nor did the Crusaders. Their goal was simple: take back the holy land in the name of Christendom. They cared nothing for evangelical preaching of the Gospels. When the Crusader states were formed, most non-Christian locals were either killed, exiled, or sold into slavery. "Muslims did not force religion by sword either, but they used other means (non-Muslim taxation for instance) to ensure that the people brought under Islam rule converted to the religion." This was not a measure to force conversion to Islam, but a treatment of Christians and Jews as second-class citizens. They could not gain a high status in society, but they were tolerated*. Much more than can be said for Muslim presence in medieval Europe. "Seljuk Turks had shown that they were not frightened to expand their empire, so fearing Constantinople falling into the hands of Muslims (which it did 300 years later), Alexis I called for Pope Urban II for help. Can he be blamed for this?" No, he cannot be blamed. I forgot to mention the capture of Nicaea earlier, and admit you make a compelling argument. If the Crusades were defensive wars meant to counter Seljuq expansion and restore Byzantine territory, then they would have been completely justified. But they were not this type of war, as Pope Urban II had his own agenda, which was conquering the Holy Land and driving out the "vile" Muslims. And western Europeans as a whole had no love for the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines were members of the Greek Orthodox church, seen as heretics by the Catholics since the great schism of 1054. The Crusaders' disdain for the Greeks was shown when they broke their vows to Emperor Alexios I to restore all conquered lands to the Empire (in exchange for lavish wealth, military aid, and passage through his kingdom) [1] and culminated in the Catholic sacking of Constantinople in 1204, which is exactly what emperors feared the Turks would do. Nicaea was one of the main things that triggered the First Crusade, by pure cause and effect, but it certainly wasn't the ultimate goal of it. "The Mad King ordered the destruction or confiscation of over 30 000 churches. It was a violation towards Christianity so huge that it cannot be just noted off the list of the reasons for Crusades. No doubt it affected the Westerners trust about the intentions of Muslims." As I stated, a violation by one man, not by the entire religion of Islam. I won't blame the western Europeans for being unaware of the full story, but does a simple misunderstanding mean the Crusades were justified? Certainly not. "[The massacre at Jerusalem] was certainly not directed towards a precise race." I hate to play the Hitler card, but the Holocaust was directed at multiple groups: gypsies, the disabled, homosexuals, and of course, the Jews. These groups are vastly diverse in classification, but were all killed because they were viewed as enemies of the Aryan race, or in Nazi rhetoric, "life unworthy of life". In the same way, the Crusaders viewed Muslims, Jews, and to a lesser extent eastern Christians as the enemies of the Church. The massacre was the result of an ideology which portayed these people as savage animals and Satanists, not of simple adrenaline from battle. No medieval political wars among Catholic kingdoms were accompanied by such widespread killing and desolation; the monarchs usually respected one another as Christians in spite of their disagreements. But because the enemy was alien and dehumanized, the Crusaders gleefully took part in the genocide not of one precise race, but of all who they deemed unworthy of life. "Pope Urban's goal was not an organized destruction of Muslims, as this wouldn't have benefitted him in any way. His goal was to liberate the Christian areas and Jerusalem by whatever means necessary." Pope Urban knew that the Muslims needed to be removed from the Holy Land, one way or another. It was probably of little consequence to him whether they were booted out or simply killed. Perhaps dubbing his speech a "call for genocide" was an exaggeration on my part, because you're correct, his main goal was to grab Europe's attention with extreme rhetoric. His hope for the First Crusade,and the actual result, was something akin to ethnic cleansing, except a religious variety. But he certainly allowed for and encouraged genocide. Looking again at his speech, he states: "All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested." [2] Anyone who participates in the Crusades, he promises, receives a free ticket into Heaven. Catholics at this time were hesitant about the idea of holy war, given Jesus's condemnations of violence and killing, so the Pope reassured them that because God Himself sanctioned this war, killing is not only allowed, but rewarded. "As a sidenote, to be precise, the Fourth Crusade doesn't meet those qualifications. Nor do many other "Crusades"." You're right, as I now realize. Whoops. Let's just say that I was aware of this, and was only talking about the Fourth Crusade to strengthen my other points. CONCLUSION: Pro insists that the Crusades were justified because Constantinople was under direct threat from the Turks at the time and some persecution of Christians was happening in Muslim-controlled areas. I argue that the purpose of the Crusades was not to save Constantinople or any Byzantine territories, but to capture the "Holy Land" from the Arabs and Turks, and remove all non-Christians from it. Many bloody massacres happened during the Crusades, not as a side effect of battle frenzy, as Pro argues, but as the fulfillment of Crusader cause and ideology. And there is no evidence for any widespread persecution of any Christian pilgrims or natives in any Muslim territories, outside of Mad Caliph, whose insanity cannot be used to condemn Islam and whose successor immediately corrected his wrongs. The Crusades were aggressive, unnecessary wars of conquest, born out of ignorance and greed and ending in catastrophe for nearly every party involved. I stand firm by the belief that they were not justified. I thank Pro for a lively, genuinely thought-provoking debate, the best I've had in a while. Voters, choose whomever you think deserves to win.Footnote:*This is based on Muhammad's respect for the other Abrahamic religions as "People of the Book", as opposed to the polytheistic pagans which he so loved slaughtering. SOURCES:1. https://www.britannica.com...;2. http://legacy.fordham.edu...;3. Asbridge, Thomas S. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land. New York: Ecco, 2010. Print.