From: wthyde1953@gmail.com   
      
   Paul S Person wrote:   
   > On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 18:32:15 -0400, William Hyde    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> Paul S Person wrote:   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > And his responsibility, as their liege lord, to assist/protect them.   
   >   
   > Feudal obligations were /mutual/, not just one-way.   
   >   
   > He did this because the man the Pope put in charge was behaving very   
   > badly, and he did it under threat of excommunication.   
      
   De Monfort, Earl of Leicester, was quite ruthless, and his personal   
   faith inclined to the Dominicans and their desire to extirpate "heresy".   
   But he was also very keen on grabbing land, though his son lost most of   
   the gains.   
      
   His second son, also Earl of Leicester, tried to become the effective   
   ruler of England, and to some degree the nature of Parliament is due to   
   his maneuverings. A better politician than his father, but not as good a   
   general.   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > He was excommunicated for being a Cathar. Per the article, anyway.   
      
   I'm sure that was the accusation, and when accusation equals conviction   
   everyone is guilty.  But there is plenty of evidence that he kept to the   
   Catholic faith, however sympathetic he was to their beliefs, and   
   reluctant to persecute the peaceful, productive, tax-paying and highly   
   respected Cathars in his domain.   
      
   He did travel in company with a Cathar perfect, doubtless "evidence"   
   used against him, but he also had his Catholic priests.  I used to drink   
   and talk theology with a professor at the Pontifical Institute for   
   Medieval studies, but that didn't make me a Catholic.   
      
   >   
   >> It was difficult to rule and be a Cathar.  Too much violence required.   
   >   
   > Not in a Cathar territory.   
      
   While crusader propaganda claimed a Cathar majority, the Cathars were a   
   definite minority.  However respected  their behavior made them, most   
   people were not prepared to believe in two gods, to think about giving   
   up meat and sex, and so on.   
      
   After the sack of Beziers, the murderers naturally claimed that the vast   
   majority of those killed were Cathars, and even exaggerated the death   
   toll to 20,000, but while Beziers had a strong Cathar community, it was   
   unlikely to have been even half the population, probably much less.   
      
   It was always to the benefit of the crusaders to exaggerate the number   
   of Cathars killed, if only because this implied that they had killed   
   fewer Catholics.   
      
      
   William Hyde   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)