The Instigator
AEQUITAS
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
rweisbac
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The First Crusade

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,171 times Debate No: 6006
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

AEQUITAS

Pro

The First Crusade has been viewed in a number of different ways. These views range from the First Crusade was an attempt to colonize North Africa to, the First Crusade was simply bloodthirsty religious fanatical Christian Europeans invading Muslim lands and slaughtering as many people as they could. I present that the First Crusade, although fought by fanatical people in some cases, was in and of itself a defensive and necessary war.
rweisbac

Con

Thank You for such an interesting topic.

The main factor that led to the first crusade was the rising power of the Church at this time was another factor leading to the Crusades. This created a rising tide of piety in Western Europe that expressed itself in pilgrimages to Palestine before the Turks seized it, and adapted itself to a holy war (crusade) after the Turkish conquest. This rising tide of piety was part of a broader movement for Church reform led by the popes that had caused the Investiture Struggle with the German emperors over control of the election of Church officials. Both the reunification of the Catholic Church with Byzantium and the recovery of Jerusalem fit into the larger ambitions of Pope Urban II. If the pope could lead all of Christendom in a crusade to recover the Holy Land (Palestine), then his moral authority would far surpass that of the German Emperor.
Debate Round No. 1
AEQUITAS

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate. The reason that Pope Urban the II had to call for the First Crusade is because of Muslim aggression. Islam had conquered the Iberian Peninsula and was working on defeating the Byzantine Empire, which was not only a friendly nation with Europe but also a very beneficial trade partner. Many people assert that because the Iberian Peninsula had been conquered so long ago that this didn't have anything to do with the First Crusade. However, if one looks at the history of medieval Europe from the time of the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula to the time of the First Crusade then it one will see that Europe was a very chaotic place during these years. 1095 was the earliest that Europe had the ability to do anything about Muslim aggressions. "Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war." This is a quote from Dr. Thomas Madden.
http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com...
I list this website in order to show Dr. Madden's credentials in this field. Another thing that brought about this defensive war was the capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuk Turks in 1073. Whenever this group of Muslims took over they were much more extreme than before and slaughtered most of the remaining Christians in the city. Many pilgrims coming to the city were treated badly also. Now, remember that just like the Iberian Peninsula, Jerusalem had also been under the control of the Christians. The Byzantine Empire had fought many enemies to try and keep it under its control. Another example of Muslim aggression against Europe was the capture of Sicily which happened in 902. Yet another example of Muslim aggressions against Europe and its friends is the attack and capture of Anatolia in 1073. Anatolia was also taken from the Byzantine Empire. It wasn't until Emperor Alexius came and beseached Urban the II for help to fight off the invading Muslims. By then, the Byzantines had lost almost half of their empire. I do agree with you that starting a Crusade would have been a great way to gain power. However, whatever Pope Urban's ambitions may or may not have been, (because no one really knows what they were) the First Crusade was a response to Muslim conquest of both European and Byzantium lands and the mistreatment of Christian pilgrims. For, if these things had not happened, Pope Urban II could have called for a crusade all he wanted and nobody would have responded.
rweisbac

Con

rweisbac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AEQUITAS

Pro

Since my opponent has not posted another argument I will simply reiterate my second round argument. Europe and its valuable trade partner, the Byzantine Empire, had been under attack from Islam since the 7th century. The most severe of these attacks conquered the Iberian Peninsula and tried to conquer the land of the Franks (modern day France.) As a side note, it is interesting that Muslims attacking these European controlled lands did so with religious motivations. The Battle of Tours, in which Charles Martel defeated the advancing Muslim horde in Arabic is called, The Battle of Court of the Martyrs. Muslim accounts of the battle tell of Islamic warriors going out in battle as "Ghazis", or "martyrs for their faith who died in battle." It is interesting that despite people's attempts to paint the picture that the crusades begot jihad we have this overwhelming proof that Islam was the first to embark on "holy war". Anyways, back to the First Crusade. The most recent attacks against European and Byzantium lands were the capture of Anatolia and the capture of Sicily. Also, Muslims killed many Christians in Jerusalem when they conquered it. Another mitigating factor was the crucifixion of sixty Christian pilgrims by Muslims on their way to the Holy Land. It was in response to these attacks and others that brought Alexius to beg Urban II for help. It was these attacks and others that led Urban II to call for a defensive war to re-conquer lost colonies and defeat a major threat. It was these attacks and the others that occurred that led thousands of people to take up Urban II's call and fight. Again, though I say, it doesn't matter what Urban's intentions were for the war, if it had not been for these aggressions against Europe and Byzantium; if it had not been for the persecution of Christians in the Holy Land and the Iberian Peninsula, no one would have responded to the call.
rweisbac

Con

rweisbac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Necessary for whom? The expansionist Catholic empire?
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I would be willing to take this if you provide some of your argument in R1 or the comment section.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AEQUITAS 8 years ago
AEQUITAS
AEQUITASrweisbacTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70