The Crusades were justified

"'Romans indeed were expansive. However, unlike Muslims, the Roman expansionism was not motivated by religion.' I fail to see how that makes a difference. The Romans were conquerors bent on world domination, it doesn't matter what their motivation was." 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. In fact, Romans sometimes adopted those religions themselves. Muslims did not force religion by sword either, but they used other means (non-Muslim taxation for instance [1]) to ensure that the people brought under Islam rule converted to the religion. That is why Christians rightly felt their religion threatened. As an example, the population on Muslim-controlled Hispanic ares was mostly converted to Islam by the time of the Crusades. Because Romans did not threaten the existence of local religions but Muslims did, it's pointless to put them in comparison in an argument about the justification of Crusades. Perhaps one of the most important reasons for the First Crusade altogether was the city of Nicaea. Nicaea was an ancient city locating only 125 miles south-west from Constantinople. In fact it was so near, that rebellions that sprung against the Byzantines in the 10th and 11th centuries used Nicaea as the base from which to threaten the Byzantine capital. It was an extremely important city from a militaristic point of view. That's why Patriach of Constantinople, Alexis I, felt threatened when it fell into Seljuk Turk's hands in 1081.They made Nicaea the capital of their possessions, so that a capital of a great Muslim empire stood 125 miles from the capital of Orthodox Christianity. [2] 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? "That's an exaggeration so huge, it's completely wrong." I admit the exaggeration about the extinction of Christianity as a whole. But losing Constantinople would've weakened it greatly nevertheless. "Again, that was under the rule of one mad king..." The Mad King ordered the destruction or confiscation of over 30 000 churches. [3] 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. "If that isn't a call for genocide, I don't know what is" The definition of "genocide" is "deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."[4] What Christians did on the Crusades was in no way systematic, nor was it an extermination. Also, you said it yourself: "The siege of Jerusalem, perhaps the most famous battle in all the Crusades due to its resounding success, ended with a horrific massacre and bloodbath of nearly every civilian inside, Muslim or not. " It was certainly not directed towards a precise race. Moreover, Pope Urban's speech did not emphasize the destruction of the "vile race", but rather upheld the powerful tone necessary for a "call to arms" -speech. 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. You are right about the People's Crusade. It indeed fought one short battle against the Turks, so it meets your qualifications for a Crusade. As a sidenote, to be precise, the Fourth Crusade doesn't meet those qualifications. Nor do many other "Crusades". "The Fourth Crusade was the reason there were no more crusades." This accusation I now thoroughly retract. It was a clear error on my side. I stand behind the fact that the Crusades were done for a justified reason. The Turk Seljuks were threatening Constantinople, the capital of Orthodox Christians, and recent events befalling upon Christians under Muslim rule had made the westerners lose faith on the Muslims respecting Christianity. There can be a debate about what followed after, but the cause was clearly just. I now allow my opponent to present his final defence and conclusion. -I would like to thank my opponent for an enjoyable, well-thought argument with an interesting topic. May the best man win. SOURCES: [1]: http://www.euppublishing.com... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]: http://www.meforum.org... [4]: http://www.dictionary.com...