The Crusades were justified

"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." My original point was; why bring up the Roman conquerings in the first place? Crusade's core battle was between Christianity and Islam. Roman conquering had nothing to do with religion, so it's not worth discussing in a debate about the justification of Crusades. "This [non-Muslim taxation] 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." No, it was precisely a measure to force conversion to Islam. Non-Muslims had essentially few human rights, whereas those who converted to Islam were treated almost at the same level as Arabians. Non-Muslims even had to wear a special badge to divide them from Muslims, and in legal matters, the word of a non-Muslim was never considered equal to the word of Muslim. Who wouldn't convert in a system where you are treated as almost non-human?[1] In the middle of the 11th century Muslim empire itself came under pressure, and the grip of Muslim leaders tightened still. Persecutions and executions began on the Iberian peninsula. This no doubt affected the westerner's opinions on Muslims. [1] "... and culminated in the Catholic sacking of Constantinople in 1204, which is exactly what emperors feared the Turks would do..." I had hoped I would not have to say this, but the Fourth Crusade is not part of this argument, as agreed. Also, the source you linked to this chapter (source 1.) doesn't work, but I assume that's just a copy-paste mistake. "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." Certainly it doesn't justify Crusades by itself, no. This I have not claimed. But it's a single reason along with many others, which I will soon list in the Conclusion. "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'." The Nazis indeed slaughtered these groups, in an organized fashion. As I said earlier, what the Crusaders did was in no way organized. They may have viewed Muslims and Jews as "lesser people", but they certainly did not round up huge masses of Muslims and Jews from around the Middle-East to exterminate them. I don't defend the Crusader's actions during the siege of Jerusalem, but an actual nation-wide genocide was never considered. CONCLUSION: The tensions between Christian and Islamic empires were volatile during the 11th century. The "Mad Caliph" had eradicated over 30 000 Christian churches in Holy Lands, including the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which was the very birth place of Christianity. Con argues, that because these actions were carried out by one mad king, they cannot weigh in the scale as a justified reason for the Crusades. However, that along with the widespread persecution of Christians during this time (and in Iberian peninsula some time after [1]) was certainly noted by Christians as an attack against their faith. But perhaps the tensions would never have discharged, had the Islamic Seljuq Turk empire not threatened Constantinople by taking over the city of Nicaea in 1081. As Byzantine Emperor Alexios I had to call for help from the Pope to defend the capital of Eastern Christianity, Christians saw an opportunity to not only ensure the safety of Constantinople, but to simultaneously liberate the Holy Lands from the Muslims who had ravaged them a short while ago. I will not defend Christians for their violent methods and actions in conquering back the Holy Lands, but the cause and the reasons for which they fought for was clearly, and utterly, just. I wish to thank Con for a mind-opening debate which I greatly enjoyed. The debate was clean and courteous with interesting points from multiple perspectives. Voters, choose whomever you see worthy. DEUS VULT! Sources: [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk...