List of possible Throne-contenders

Indeed, true. *changes* I might go back to one of the more 'esoteric quotes' from one of my games from days of yore.
 
Jakk has it correct, except.. the Albigensian Crusade was not the first crusade, in fact it isn't numbered among any of the normal crusades. 1209-1254 was the years usually mentioned for the crusade.


But yeah, they burned "heretics" who were normal peasants by the hundreds and thousands. But then, the priests and monks were regular rapist who had made a very nice little system out of it in the priestly schools in southern france, so it was hardly only the knights who did so ;)


Simon de Montfort.. what a man. Responsible for a ton of those things around the Cathar regions.


And.. the reason I felt the need to mention this, was that It's what I'm studying for my Ph.D later on :P
 
The foray against the Albegensian Heresy was really the proto-Crusade, it showed the efficacy of sending your knights to take shit from folks who didn't believe what you did, and how willing they'd be to put folks to the sword for the Church.  And their stuff.  I consider it an important part of the mentality that built the Crusades up into the fever pitch that sent sons far and away, and kept the nobility from squabbling amongst themselves.  


While not a formal part of the Crusades in a lot of historians' eyes, without that little bit of fun in the sun, there would have been no Crusade to the Holy Land.  


The Church and the nobility realized, upon reflection of the whole affair, that sending your rivals and potential rivals, their scions, their retinue whole, off into the wilds, against a hazily referenced and often nebulously defined foe, was a useful tool for keeping power localized, while reaping great financial benefit.  The Albegensian Crusade wasn't so much about the Unitarians saying "Poo with your Trinity, you cheap Papist Bastards!" as much as it was about testing the limits of what the nobility would do for fun and profit, and keeping their clients happy for supplying them with good reason to send folks off into that good night.  Kept the nobility busy, and they came home with profit, soldiers who were satisfied with loot, raping, pillaging, and valuable martial experience--even if that martial experience was running down peasants, priests, and children into the ground for daring to disagree with the Mother Church, far, far, far away...
 
The Church and the nobility realized' date=' upon reflection of the whole affair, that sending your rivals and potential rivals, their scions, their retinue whole, off into the wilds, against a hazily referenced and often nebulously defined foe, was a useful tool for keeping power localized, while reaping great financial benefit.[/quote']
Sounds oddly familiar.


-S
 
Oh, I know they did... look at the Reichstag fire... I mean, the September 11th attacks... I mean, oops! Did I just say that?


-S
 
I think they realized that much earlier..


Since the "crusade" in Languedoc and southern france, was in fact after the normal crusades.. the eight crusades towards the Holy Land were:


   *  the first, 1095-1101;


   * the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47;


   * the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188-92;


   * the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204;


   * the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217;


   * the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239);


   * the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52;


   * the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270.


( Blatantly stolen from the catholic church's own homepage )


As you can see, when Innocentius III called the crusade to cleanse the albigensians, the tradition was already established. The first crusade was in fact for much more political reasons than one could expect, or rather: The massive religious pilgrimage during the first part of the 11th century was put to an end by the Seljuk turks when they conquered Jerusalem in 1070, and Constantinople ( fresh from the final division of the church in 1054 ) begged for help from Gregory VII. Then, Pope Urban II decided to make Gregory VII's vision of a united christian church a go, by preaching the first crusade to reclaim the holy sepulchre. It was wildly popular by several lords throughout europe, and well.. the rest is common knowledge.


Well. Hrm. Yeah, there you go, its a very condensed version and far from the full truth, but it's the best I can do in this short time. :)


// Zar.
 
The so-called crusade against the Albigensians was motivated more for political and economic motives than for religion.


 One of the Catharite heresies was that the intercession of a priest was unnecessary for the forgiving of sins--implying that the Church was not necessary. Once a large number of nobles started following Catharism--and refusing to pay tithes and offerings to the Church--the very existence of the Church was threatened. Hence the military response.


 The nobles answering the Church's call were likewise more motivated by the prospect of gaining lands and riches formerly held by the Catharite nobles than any bonafide religious fervor.
 
That was why it was turned into a crusade, but it wouldnt' have been possible if the kingdom of France had not started to grow at this point in time, and needed to conquer new land areas, namely the independent kingdom in southern france :P


So it was something of a combination. But if you look at the aftermath of the crusades, and the inquisitionary protocols, especially from Montaillou and others written by the inquisitors themselves, you can hardly claim that religion was not part of their investigations of the normal populace.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top