From: wthyde1953@gmail.com   
      
   Paul S Person wrote:   
   > On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 17:49:43 -0400, William Hyde    
   > wrote:   
   >   
      
   >   
   > I read an article in a military history magazine yesterday on the   
   > Albigensian Crusade. It may be helpful to cite a few items:   
   >   
   > 1. At this period, at least, sacking castles etc is either a slander   
   > or something that no longer occurred, as there is no mention of this   
   > in the article, as there surely would be when the reasons for the   
   > crusade are discussed.   
   >   
   > 2. The first to style himself King of France (as opposed to King of   
   > the Franks) was Phillip II in 1180. Charles Martel could not and did   
   > not add anything to France, because France did not exist in his day.   
      
   Here is a good map that illustrates this:   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel#/media/File:Francia_714.png   
      
   Martel of course, claimed the whole as the successor of Clovis and that   
   all these territories were in fact part of his kingdom (even if he   
   wasn't technically the king).   
      
   Charles may not have been adding these territories to France, but he was   
   adding them to his personal possessions, and passed on most of what is   
   now France to his son (who divided it among his sons, but one died early   
   and the other was Charlemagne).   
      
      
   > 3. "By the 1170s, the sect [Cathar] had self-organized into dioceses   
   > with their own bishops and deacons who acted as parish priests."   
   > Cathedrals are not mentioned. Another discussion suggests that   
   > wherever the bishop was was also a cathedral.   
   >   
   > 4. The local nobles were vassals of King of Aragon.   
      
   It's complex.  Raymond VI, for example was in various territories a   
   vassal of the King of France, Henry II of England, the ruler of Aragon   
   and the Holy Roman Empire.  He was descended from a recent king of   
   France, related to the King of Aragon, and married a daughter of Henry II.   
      
   And yes, as you mentioned (and I erroneously snipped) at one point the   
   king of Aragon fought to restore his vassal and relative Raymond's lands   
   and  titles.  He obviously took his authority in Languedoc seriously.   
      
   > 5. The local nobles defended their /land/, and so their people.   
   > Actually, one of them, in return for his excommunication being   
   > cancelled, joined the 1209 crusade and attacked his cousin to save his   
   > own lands. For a while.   
      
   As I said.  The pope was for a crusade against heretics, but it was a   
   land grab for those who fought.   
      
   Landless nobles were always a menace.   
      
      
   >> The wars were thus fought mainly between Catholics, with non-Perfect   
   >> Cathars participating, especially in the defense of their strongholds.   
   >   
   > Count Raymond VI of Tolouse was Cathar   
      
   I don't believe he was.  He was sympathetic, and did not persecute, but   
   he kept to the Catholic faith.   
      
   It was difficult to rule and be a Cathar.  Too much violence required.   
      
      
     until he joined the crusade to   
   > protect his lands by diverting it to Trenceval. He eventually deserted   
   > the Crusade, resumed his Cathar beliefs, and ... well, it's a typical   
   > story of the time.   
      
   In fact he died in the company of an Abbot, and was cared for by the   
   Knights of St John.   He was never buried, however, and a recent attempt   
   at lifting his excommunication failed (according to wikipedia - none of   
   my other sources mention this so ...).   
      
      
   >>   
   >>>> It was decades before northern France even helped southern France, much   
   >>>> of which remained under Muslim control until 759.  Charles Martel gets   
   >>>> far too much credit for stopping the Muslim invasion.   
   >>>   
   >>> 759 is, indeed, 26 years after 732. So "2.6 decades" is correct.   
   >>   
   >> The first invasion of Southern France by Muslims was in 711.  It was   
   >> halted for a time by Duke Odo of Aquitaine, who won a decisive victory   
   >> at the battle of Toulouse in 721. With no help from Charles.   
   >>   
   >> It was, on the contrary, Charles Martel who sacked Aquitaine, twice,   
   >> about 731.  Odo had allied himself with a Muslim Berber who was himself   
   >> at odds with the Umayyad expansionists, and this was the pretext Charles   
   >> used.  Probably said he was antifa, too.   
   >>   
   >> Despite this rather nasty behavior on Charles' part, Odo joined him at   
   >> the battle of Tours, Odo's forces flanking the Muslims and attacking   
   >>from the rear.  Odo soon retired to a monastery and I'm sure Charles had   
   >> nothing to do with it.   
   >>   
   >> Contrary to high school history books, the threat was far from over   
   >> after the battle of Tours.  The Umayyad forces continued to expand in   
   >> Southern France, not least because the locals feared them less than they   
   >> feared the Northern French.  Martel had to ally with the Lombards to   
   >> kick them out, convincing the Lombards by the argument that if Provence   
   >> fell, they'd be next.   
   >   
   > A nice summary of the details. But what does it really change? Martel   
   > was in command.   
      
   It matters a great deal. If the Umayyads win in 1721, there is no Tours.   
      
   Nor do I think the Lombards regarded themselves as under his command.   
   Allies, yes, but certainly not subjects.  He asked them for help, not   
   vice versa.   
      
   Also overlooked is Odo's support of disunity in Spain.  His alliance   
   with a Berber leader probably delayed and weakened the Umayyad incursion   
   even more than his battlefield win.   
      
   All in all, I think Charles gets far too much credit.  Though he   
   certainly deserves a lot.   
      
   >   
   >> So yes, Charles played a major role, though he spent as much time   
   >> attacking the French as the Muslims.  Odo also played a role, arguably   
   >> as large a one, as did Liutprand of the Lombards (who gets no credit,   
   >> doubtless for not being French).   
   >>   
   >> What Charles wanted was control of southern France. His behaviour   
   >> strongly implies that whether he took it from Muslims, his fellow   
   >> French, or Goths, was of little interest to him.  But he was practical   
   >> enough not to bite off more than he could chew, and left the final work   
   >> to his son, who conquered the Muslim state of Narbonne.   
   >>   
   >> He also kept good relations with the Lombards.  Never know when you   
   >> might need them again.   
   >   
   > Keep in mind that this is a (Iberian) Spanish history of Spain. Taught   
   > by a Castilian Spanish speaker. It may have been a bit ... biased.   
   >   
   > It was almost certainly something for younger students in Spain than   
   > ourselves. But that's not uncommon in learning a language: books   
   > written for younger people are closer to the learning student's   
   > abilities.   
   >   
   >>> But in the 8th Century, that was pretty fast work, given all the other   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)