From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 19:14:50 -0400, William Hyde    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   It's easier to loot a town if you kill everybody than it is if you   
   only kill the Cathars and then have to figure out how to determine   
   which buildings you can loot and which you cannot.   
      
   There were exceptions, and there were cases where everybody died.   
      
   And when a town is attacked, people will often defend it regardless of   
   differences.    
   --    
   "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,   
   Who evil spoke of everyone but God,   
   Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)