Discussion:
Muslim Spain - no Reconquista
Add Reply
Alex Milman
2017-06-21 20:44:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
WIF the Muslims managed to create AND maintain a SINGLE sustainable state
occupying most of the Peninsula?

This state occupies practically all the peninsula (as an option, there is
a single Christian state, Kingdom of Asturias on the North but it is incapable
of the noticeable further expansion). It also manages to stay intact and
eventually achieve conversion of the majority of its population pretty much as
it happened in Egypt, North Africa, and Near East. While there are obvious
links with the North Africa, there are no invasions (Almohades) and the state
keeps developing its own culture without too much of a fanatical intervention.
However, to make things more plausible, there is a significant Berber
immigration (enough to make Muslims a domineering military force).

The Muslim excursions into the Southern and Central France (VII - VIII
centuries) are repulsed, as in OTL but they still control the Peninsula.

While majority of the local Christians are converted, there is still a
significant Christian minority (and Jewish as well) living in approximately
the same situation as the Copts: having dhimmī status, paying the jizya tax,
being excluded from the military service, not having the same (<whatever>)
rights as the Muslims but living in their communities and being ruled (to some
degree) by their own laws.

Military system of ATL Al-Andalus (just to have some term) keeps developing
more or less along the same lines as in OTL (to make things easier to figure
out).

The options:

1. This state is in a relative peace with France at least until mid/late-XV
century (small border wars do not count). At which point France may chose
one of 2 options:

1.1. Treating ATL Al-Andalus as an ordinary neighbor (because the Kingdom of
Naples looks as more attractive goal; unlike OTL there is going to be no
competition from Aragon and even the ruling dynasty in Naples is French but
it can be extinct by that time and the claim could be picked up by the kings
of France as in OTL).

1.2. Going against it with a religious excuse expecting to use the local
Christians as the 5th column.

2. There are Spanish Crusades happening approximately at the same
time slot as the OTL ones: If St. Louis could land in Egypt and Tunisia
(and to lose in both cases), he surely could march into Iberia, just across
the border (and to lose there). :-)
But let's exclude creation of the significant Christian states and the
following Reconquista to make it different from OTL. Let's say that by the
mid/late-XV there are few small Christian states along the border. The main
territory is still controlled by a Muslim state by mid-XV.

How things are developing from this point (or points) on?
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-22 04:06:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
WIF the Muslims managed to create AND maintain a SINGLE sustainable state
occupying most of the Peninsula?
Well, there are big consequences, both inside and outside the
Mediterranean.

First, I suspect there would be no Crusading to the
Middle East, or much less. The pressure on France from
Iberia would distract the French. Most of the
Crusaders came from northern and eastern France, but
even they would not ignore the Iberian threat.

There might be Christian expeditions into Iberia, which
would compete with the Holy Land, and would be much
closer.

That's first.

Next - the Mediterranean would be much more Moslem-
dominated. At the start of this period (circa 1000)
Byzantium still held much of the east. By 1400, Byzantium
was effectively gone, but Spain was rising to pick up the
load. For instance, half the Christian fleet at Lepanto was
Spanish.

If instead Moslems own both ends of the Med, it's going to
be very hard for Italy, which will be practically besieged
from three sides.

Finally, Islam will have a much greater presence in the Atlantic.
If and when sailing ships improve to support more wide-ranging
voyages, the Macaronesian Islands (Madeira, Canaries, Azores, Cape
Verde) will be settled by Moslems. Also, Moslem raiders will be
much more of problem for Atlantic France and the British Isles
than OTL. Moslems may settle South America.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-22 14:09:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
WIF the Muslims managed to create AND maintain a SINGLE sustainable state
occupying most of the Peninsula?
Well, there are big consequences, both inside and outside the
Mediterranean.
That's the whole idea. :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
First, I suspect there would be no Crusading to the
Middle East, or much less. The pressure on France from
Iberia would distract the French. Most of the
Crusaders came from northern and eastern France, but
even they would not ignore the Iberian threat.
The "pressure" is not 100% granted but quite probable, especially
taking into an account that France of the XI century is not a
strong centralized state. To think about it, at the time of Angevine
Empire a big chunk of the South is controlled by the force hostile
to the Kings of France so there could be interesting combinations.

OTOH, while the first crusades had been explicitly about freeing the
Holy Land, it is quite reasonable to assume that the Muslims on your
backyard would also count. IIRC, in OTL Reconquista had been considered
as something like a crusade. OTOH, by the of this ATL the
"Iberian Crusades" can't be too successful: the Muslim state should
survive into the XV century (with some reasonably small adjustments
on the Northern border).
Post by Rich Rostrom
There might be Christian expeditions into Iberia, which
would compete with the Holy Land, and would be much
closer.
So we have a shorter life span for Outremer. OTOH, geographic proximity
would not be that obvious for the crusaders from Germany (granted, the
German component was not very successful in OTL)

But, with that reshuffling of the priorities, the 4th Crusade may not
happen in its OTL form, which means no fall of Constantinople, no Latin
Empire and Byzantine Empire being at least somewhat stronger than in OTL.
Post by Rich Rostrom
That's first.
Next - the Mediterranean would be much more Moslem-
dominated.
Yes, but don't forget that the Muslim world did not stay united for
too long and that its components (prior to the Ottomans) had been
quarrelling with each other and made alliances with the Christian states:
Muslim Spain was in alliance with Byzantine Empire against Baghdad (or
whatever).
Post by Rich Rostrom
At the start of this period (circa 1000)
Byzantium still held much of the east. By 1400, Byzantium
was effectively gone, but Spain was rising to pick up the
load. For instance, half the Christian fleet at Lepanto was
Spanish.
Well, Lepanto is a little bit after the time line of this ATL but
your point is valid. OTOH, there is a chance that the ATL Al-Andalus
may end up competing with the Ottomans (say, influence in North Africa), etc.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If instead Moslems own both ends of the Med, it's going to
be very hard for Italy, which will be practically besieged
from three sides.
Only if these Muslims are united, which is unlikely: in OTL they kept
fighting with each other until the Ottomans took over.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Finally, Islam will have a much greater presence in the Atlantic.
If and when sailing ships improve to support more wide-ranging
voyages, the Macaronesian Islands (Madeira, Canaries, Azores, Cape
Verde) will be settled by Moslems. Also, Moslem raiders will be
much more of problem for Atlantic France and the British Isles
than OTL. Moslems may settle South America.
I'm not sure that they did have naval capacities. In OTL the pirates of
Barbary cost picked up the European design while the Muslims operating
on the Indian Ocean did not venture to sail far beyond the coastline.


But there are other serious differences.

To start with, there are no Italian Wars and no "Hapsburg encirclement" of
France.

There are no Spanish Netherlands with all related consequences and probably
no 30YW (without Spanish motivation, gold and soldiers).

Whoever ends up discovering Americas, it is not Spain and the whole situation
with the gold and silver plays differently (most of the plausible candidates
had more developed economy than Spain).

No Latin America.

Well, no obnoxious movies about the brave noble English defeating the evil
Spaniards. :-)
The Horny Goat
2017-06-22 15:11:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 07:09:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
There are no Spanish Netherlands with all related consequences and probably
no 30YW (without Spanish motivation, gold and soldiers).
Whoever ends up discovering Americas, it is not Spain and the whole situation
with the gold and silver plays differently (most of the plausible candidates
had more developed economy than Spain).
No Latin America.
Well, no obnoxious movies about the brave noble English defeating the evil
Spaniards. :-)
And no Spanish Inquisition which they learned from the Muslims who
were very interested in assuring that Jews who converted to Islam
actually converted to Islam.

After Grenada was captured it was realized that something similar
would be very useful for ensuring the 'purity of the Catholic faith'

No question no Muslim conquest of Spain meant there wouldn't be
Spanish anti-semiticism based on fears the Jewish population of Spain
was siding with the Muslims against the Catholics.

It probably also heavily influences the whole balance of Sephardic vs
Ashkenazi Jews.
Alex Milman
2017-06-22 16:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 07:09:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
There are no Spanish Netherlands with all related consequences and probably
no 30YW (without Spanish motivation, gold and soldiers).
Whoever ends up discovering Americas, it is not Spain and the whole situation
with the gold and silver plays differently (most of the plausible candidates
had more developed economy than Spain).
No Latin America.
Well, no obnoxious movies about the brave noble English defeating the evil
Spaniards. :-)
And no Spanish Inquisition
Inquisition was not Spanish invention. It started in XII century France and
legalized by Papacy in 1252 at which time the torture of the heretics was
officially allowed.
Post by The Horny Goat
which they learned from the Muslims who
were very interested in assuring that Jews who converted to Islam
actually converted to Islam.
After Grenada was captured it was realized that something similar
would be very useful for ensuring the 'purity of the Catholic faith'
I'm afraid that in that sense your schema is more that two centuries off:
Ferdinand and Isabella established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 by which
time this institution had a very long history of looking for the purity of
the faith.
Post by The Horny Goat
No question no Muslim conquest
Aren't there too many "no"? :-)
Post by The Horny Goat
of Spain meant there wouldn't be
Spanish anti-semiticism based on fears the Jewish population of Spain
was siding with the Muslims against the Catholics.
Anti-Semitism in Spain goes back to the Visigoth times when there were no
Muslims around and can be traced through the following history. Taking into
an account that it also existed in the places where the Muslims never had
been present (like Germany, England, France), this specific rationalization
not very convincing.
Post by The Horny Goat
It probably also heavily influences the whole balance of Sephardic vs
Ashkenazi Jews.
The Horny Goat
2017-06-22 23:34:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:53:20 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Ferdinand and Isabella established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 by which
time this institution had a very long history of looking for the purity of
the faith.
I understand that.

I also understand that Muslims in Spain took a VERY dim view of Jewish
converts to Islam secretly practicing Jewish rituals and reacted
vigorously and violently when they uncovered "conversos" (I know this
is not a Muslim term!) secretly practicing non-Islamic rituals.

You can argue the extent to which Ferdinand and Isabella drew on
previous Islamic practice against "conversos" but the sort of thing
that the Spanish Inquisition is known for definitely did not originate
with them.

Nor even within Christendom which is my whole point.
Alex Milman
2017-06-23 02:44:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:53:20 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Ferdinand and Isabella established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 by which
time this institution had a very long history of looking for the purity of
the faith.
I understand that.
I also understand that Muslims in Spain took a VERY dim view of Jewish
converts to Islam secretly practicing Jewish rituals and reacted
vigorously and violently when they uncovered "conversos" (I know this
is not a Muslim term!) secretly practicing non-Islamic rituals.
You can argue the extent to which Ferdinand and Isabella drew on
previous Islamic practice against "conversos" but the sort of thing
that the Spanish Inquisition is known for definitely did not originate
with them.
Nor even within Christendom which is my whole point.
Well, can't say anything about the Muslim part but the TRULY unique thing
about the Spanish Inquisition was that, unlike all other, it was completely
controlled by the crown, which was getting certain percentage of the
confiscated properties.
Pete Barrett
2017-06-24 07:58:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Inquisition was not Spanish invention. It started in XII century France
and legalized by Papacy in 1252 at which time the torture of the heretics
was officially allowed.
It was targetted against the Albigensian heretics in Provence and Toulouse
and southern France generally. Which brings up an obvious question - how
would the existence of a unified, and presumably more or less hostile,
Muslim Spain affect the religious and political history of southern France?

One possibility is that the Church would be more accomodating, fearing that
the Cathars could serve as a fifth column in any Muslim attack on the area.
(The fact that Cathar beliefs had almost nothing in common with Islam is
neither here nor there, because it's clear that the people of the time had
almost no knowledge of Muslim beliefs (an ignorance equalled only by the
Muslims' ignorance of Christian beliefs), so they wouldn't have realised
that.) That probably strengthens the major southern French states (Toulouse
and Provence) in their attempt to remain practically independent of the
French kings.

Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have insisted even
more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even more strongly (hard to
imagine, but theoretically possible). Would that give a quicker conquest of
Toulouse, perhaps even before 1100, and strengthen the French kings'
authority also against other semi-independent fiefs, such as Aquitaine?
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-06-24 15:32:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Inquisition was not Spanish invention. It started in XII century France
and legalized by Papacy in 1252 at which time the torture of the heretics
was officially allowed.
It was targetted against the Albigensian heretics in Provence and Toulouse
and southern France generally. Which brings up an obvious question - how
would the existence of a unified, and presumably more or less hostile,
Muslim Spain affect the religious and political history of southern France?
One possibility is that the Church would be more accomodating, fearing that
the Cathars could serve as a fifth column in any Muslim attack on the area.
(The fact that Cathar beliefs had almost nothing in common with Islam is
neither here nor there, because it's clear that the people of the time had
almost no knowledge of Muslim beliefs (an ignorance equalled only by the
Muslims' ignorance of Christian beliefs), so they wouldn't have realised
that.)
Even if they did, they may not care: it was enough that the Cathars were not
the good Catholics. And, of course, that the Southern lands had been richer
than those on the North.
Post by Pete Barrett
That probably strengthens the major southern French states (Toulouse
and Provence) in their attempt to remain practically independent of the
French kings.
Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have insisted even
more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even more strongly (hard to
imagine, but theoretically possible). Would that give a quicker conquest of
Toulouse, perhaps even before 1100, and strengthen the French kings'
authority also against other semi-independent fiefs, such as Aquitaine?
I'd say that the 2nd option is more realistic: exterminate enemy (and
appropriate his lands) so that the whole issue of a potential 5th column
is not there. Of course, it is an open question if conquest COULD be done
faster and in a more thorough way.
Pete Barrett
2017-06-25 17:14:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have insisted
even more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even more strongly (hard
to imagine, but theoretically possible). Would that give a quicker
conquest of Toulouse, perhaps even before 1100, and strengthen the French
kings' authority also against other semi-independent fiefs, such as
Aquitaine?
I'd say that the 2nd option is more realistic: exterminate enemy (and
appropriate his lands) so that the whole issue of a potential 5th column
is not there. Of course, it is an open question if conquest COULD be done
faster and in a more thorough way.
I think I agree, though if the French kings were not actually capable of
asserting their authority over southern France so early, where does that
leave us? I don't think there are any other realistic candidates to conquer
Occitania, so with that option off the table, it means shoring up one or
more of the great southern French fiefdoms to act as a bulwark against
Islam, and that may mean being more accomodating to their religious
eccentricities.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-06-25 20:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have insisted
even more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even more strongly (hard
to imagine, but theoretically possible). Would that give a quicker
conquest of Toulouse, perhaps even before 1100, and strengthen the French
kings' authority also against other semi-independent fiefs, such as
Aquitaine?
I'd say that the 2nd option is more realistic: exterminate enemy (and
appropriate his lands) so that the whole issue of a potential 5th column
is not there. Of course, it is an open question if conquest COULD be done
faster and in a more thorough way.
I think I agree, though if the French kings were not actually capable of
asserting their authority over southern France so early, where does that
leave us?
Not sure what you have in mind.

IIRC, on its initial stages the Albigensian Crusade hardly get more than a
general "blessing" from the royal power (Phillip II to whom Simon de Montfort
eventually ceded Toulouse) and only after 1226 Louis VIII interfered directly.

By the peace terms of 1229 the County of Toulouse was incorporated into the
French crown. Prior to 1209 the ruling the nobility of Toulouse, led by Count
Raymond VI of Toulouse and the Trencavel family were allies and vassals of the
Crown of Aragon so the war had both religious and "material" component.

In this ATL, with Aragon being absent (or too small to be important), the
land grab will remain on the list but the resistance would be probably weaker:
in OTL Aragon was providing a military help at least until the Battle of Muret
in 1213 where King Peter II of Aragon was killed.
Post by Pete Barrett
I don't think there are any other realistic candidates to conquer
Occitania, so with that option off the table, it means shoring up one or
more of the great southern French fiefdoms to act as a bulwark against
Islam, and that may mean being more accomodating to their religious
eccentricities.
Look how this was handled in OTL:

"Eventually Queen Blanche offered Raymond a treaty recognizing him as ruler of Toulouse in exchange for his fighting the Cathars, returning all church property, turning over his castles and destroying the defenses of Toulouse. Moreover, Raymond had to marry his daughter Joan to Louis' brother Alphonse, with the couple and their heirs obtaining Toulouse after Raymond's death, and the inheritance reverting to the king in the event that they did not have issue, as eventually proved to be the case. Raymond agreed and signed the Treaty of Paris at Meaux on April 12, 1229. He was then seized, whipped and briefly imprisoned." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade#Initial_success_1209_to_1215

Inquisition was established only in 1234 to deal with the remaining Cathars but
the secular component was done in a rather routine way: inheritance by marriage
transferred the County to king's brother (and eventually to the king).
Pete Barrett
2017-06-26 16:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have insisted
even more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even more strongly
(hard to imagine, but theoretically possible). Would that give a
quicker conquest of Toulouse, perhaps even before 1100, and strengthen
the French kings' authority also against other semi-independent fiefs,
such as Aquitaine?
I'd say that the 2nd option is more realistic: exterminate enemy (and
appropriate his lands) so that the whole issue of a potential 5th
column is not there. Of course, it is an open question if conquest
COULD be done faster and in a more thorough way.
I think I agree, though if the French kings were not actually capable of
asserting their authority over southern France so early, where does that
leave us?
Not sure what you have in mind.
What I had in mind was that with a powerful Muslim Spain next door, the
issue of the Cathars would come to a head, at least for the religious
authorities, rather earlier than in OTL.
Post by Alex Milman
IIRC, on its initial stages the Albigensian Crusade hardly get more than a
general "blessing" from the royal power (Phillip II to whom Simon de
Montfort eventually ceded Toulouse) and only after 1226 Louis VIII
interfered directly.
Well, I think this is the point. Before Louis VII, royal power hardly
operated at all in the southern provinces, so if things come to a head then,
the only way to strengthen the area against Muslim Spain is to encourage the
local counts, which obviously means strengthening them.

If it had come to a head during Louis's reign, the royal power in the area
was weak, but Louis was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine at the beginning of
his reign, and he may be more inclined to hold onto her and use Aquitaine as
a base for operations to defend southern France against the Muslims. Which
is more important to him, a son, or Christendom? (And in the case of Louis,
that is _not_ a rhetorical question!)

Even in Philip II's reign, as you point out, the King didn't do much more
than go along with what the nobles and the Church were doing. That's when it
came to a head OTL, but it didn't matter, because there was no real threat
from Muslim Spain; in the ATL there would be. Could the Church risk
alienating the likes of Toulouse and Provence, when their strongest
proponent in the area was someone with as little power as Simon de Montfort,
and their enemies have a potential ally in Muslim Spain? It seems to me that
they would need someone stronger, and if that's not the King of France, then
who? The Duke of Aquitaine (who in OTL was also the KIng of England)? That
would open up its own political can of worms, it seems to me.
Post by Alex Milman
By the peace terms of 1229 the County of Toulouse was incorporated into
the French crown. Prior to 1209 the ruling the nobility of Toulouse, led
by Count Raymond VI of Toulouse and the Trencavel family were allies and
vassals of the Crown of Aragon so the war had both religious and
"material" component.
In this ATL, with Aragon being absent (or too small to be important), the
land grab will remain on the list but the resistance would be probably
weaker: in OTL Aragon was providing a military help at least until the
Battle of Muret in 1213 where King Peter II of Aragon was killed.
Post by Pete Barrett
I don't think there are any other realistic candidates to conquer
Occitania, so with that option off the table, it means shoring up one or
more of the great southern French fiefdoms to act as a bulwark against
Islam, and that may mean being more accomodating to their religious
eccentricities.
"Eventually Queen Blanche offered Raymond a treaty recognizing him as
ruler of Toulouse in exchange for his fighting the Cathars, returning all
church property, turning over his castles and destroying the defenses of
Toulouse. Moreover, Raymond had to marry his daughter Joan to Louis'
brother Alphonse, with the couple and their heirs obtaining Toulouse after
Raymond's death, and the inheritance reverting to the king in the event
that they did not have issue, as eventually proved to be the case. Raymond
agreed and signed the Treaty of Paris at Meaux on April 12, 1229. He was
then seized, whipped and briefly imprisoned."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade#Initial_success_1209_to_1215
Post by Alex Milman
Inquisition was established only in 1234 to deal with the remaining
inheritance by marriage transferred the County to king's brother (and
eventually to the king).
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-06-26 18:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have insisted
even more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even more strongly
(hard to imagine, but theoretically possible). Would that give a
quicker conquest of Toulouse, perhaps even before 1100, and strengthen
the French kings' authority also against other semi-independent fiefs,
such as Aquitaine?
I'd say that the 2nd option is more realistic: exterminate enemy (and
appropriate his lands) so that the whole issue of a potential 5th
column is not there. Of course, it is an open question if conquest
COULD be done faster and in a more thorough way.
I think I agree, though if the French kings were not actually capable of
asserting their authority over southern France so early, where does that
leave us?
Not sure what you have in mind.
What I had in mind was that with a powerful Muslim Spain next door, the
issue of the Cathars would come to a head, at least for the religious
authorities, rather earlier than in OTL.
Not sure why would existence of the Muslim Spain mean serious difference in
timing. If anything, an absence of the Aragonian connection would probably
slow things down as far as the Kings of France were involved: the rulers of
Toulouse would probably be their vassals, not Aragonian.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
IIRC, on its initial stages the Albigensian Crusade hardly get more than a
general "blessing" from the royal power (Phillip II to whom Simon de
Montfort eventually ceded Toulouse) and only after 1226 Louis VIII
interfered directly.
Well, I think this is the point. Before Louis VII, royal power hardly
operated at all in the southern provinces,
The 1st French king directly involved in the Albigensian crusades was Louis
VIII (strictly speaking, Phillip II but his crusade lasted only two months).
Post by Pete Barrett
so if things come to a head then,
the only way to strengthen the area against Muslim Spain is to encourage the
local counts, which obviously means strengthening them.
Not necessarily. An alternative way would be to act along the OTL lines: to
subdue the area, settle in it as many feudals from the North or Il-de-France
(King's vassals) as possible and negotiate a dynastic marriage with the
following transfer of succession to guarantee both loyalty and military power.
Having too powerful and too independent border counts had both advantages and
disadvantages. Probably more disadvantages when the royal power was not too
strong.
Post by Pete Barrett
If it had come to a head during Louis's reign,
To say "Louis's reign" about France is just as meaningful as to say "Henry's
reign" about England. :-)
Post by Pete Barrett
the royal power in the area
was weak, but Louis was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine
So this was Louis VII who had nothing to do with the Albigensian Crusade. By
the time when the Cathar doctrine was declared heretical (1176 Church Council)
his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine was annulled for 24 years.
Post by Pete Barrett
at the beginning of
his reign, and he may be more inclined to hold onto her and use Aquitaine as
a base for operations to defend southern France against the Muslims.
What this has to do with the Cathars? Besides, his ability to "use" Aquitaine
was limited to the right to use the LOCAL contingents (the medieval tended to
be very sensitive about these things).
Post by Pete Barrett
Which is more important to him, a son, or Christendom? (And in the case of >Louis,
that is _not_ a rhetorical question!)
I'm afraid that your count of Louises is a little bit off. :-)

One who was a religious freak (St.Louis) was 12 years old when his father,
Louis VIII, died and 15 when Treaty of Paris at Meaux had been signed. In
other words, pretty much irrelevant to the crusade which after the death of
Louis VIII was headed by Humbert V de Beaujeu. At the age of 15 he could already
be concerned about the Christendom but hardly about the son which he did not,
yet, had.
Post by Pete Barrett
Even in Philip II's reign, as you point out, the King didn't do much more
than go along with what the nobles and the Church were doing.
Phillip II had been busy with quite a few other things but Louis VIII was
directly involved and after his death the crusading affairs were under control
of his widow.
Post by Pete Barrett
That's when it
came to a head OTL, but it didn't matter, because there was no real threat
from Muslim Spain; in the ATL there would be. Could the Church risk
alienating the likes of Toulouse and Provence, when their strongest
proponent in the area was someone with as little power as Simon de Montfort,
Who managed to defeat Toulouse and Aragon.
Post by Pete Barrett
and their enemies have a potential ally in Muslim Spain?
I'm not sure that the "Church" would be an ultimate authority on that issue:
there was also a King of France.
Post by Pete Barrett
It seems to me that
they would need someone stronger, and if that's not the King of France, then
who?
The timing is all important: prior to Phillip II there was very little the
kings of France could do but after his reign their power was clearly asserted:
de Monfort ceded Toulouse to the King. Of course, the whole process was going
back and forth for a while but ended up with a clear strengthening of the
royal authority.

How things would develop in ATL would strongly depend on how active do we want
the Muslim state. If it is relatively quiet (and there are buffer states on a
border), then I'd say that OTL-like scenario is more likely. However, if the
Muslims keep pushing North or at least are conducting the regular big scale
raids (as was done in X - XI century by Almanzor), then scenarios can be
different.
Post by Pete Barrett
The Duke of Aquitaine (who in OTL was also the KIng of England)? That
would open up its own political can of worms, it seems to me.
The Duke of Aquitaine would be defending his possessions, just as other
regional lords.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
By the peace terms of 1229 the County of Toulouse was incorporated into
the French crown. Prior to 1209 the ruling the nobility of Toulouse, led
by Count Raymond VI of Toulouse and the Trencavel family were allies and
vassals of the Crown of Aragon so the war had both religious and
"material" component.
In this ATL, with Aragon being absent (or too small to be important), the
land grab will remain on the list but the resistance would be probably
weaker: in OTL Aragon was providing a military help at least until the
Battle of Muret in 1213 where King Peter II of Aragon was killed.
Post by Pete Barrett
I don't think there are any other realistic candidates to conquer
Occitania, so with that option off the table, it means shoring up one or
more of the great southern French fiefdoms to act as a bulwark against
Islam, and that may mean being more accomodating to their religious
eccentricities.
"Eventually Queen Blanche offered Raymond a treaty recognizing him as
ruler of Toulouse in exchange for his fighting the Cathars, returning all
church property, turning over his castles and destroying the defenses of
Toulouse. Moreover, Raymond had to marry his daughter Joan to Louis'
brother Alphonse, with the couple and their heirs obtaining Toulouse after
Raymond's death, and the inheritance reverting to the king in the event
that they did not have issue, as eventually proved to be the case. Raymond
agreed and signed the Treaty of Paris at Meaux on April 12, 1229. He was
then seized, whipped and briefly imprisoned."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade#Initial_success_1209_to_1215
Post by Alex Milman
Inquisition was established only in 1234 to deal with the remaining
inheritance by marriage transferred the County to king's brother (and
eventually to the king).
--
Pete BARRETT
Pete Barrett
2017-06-27 18:12:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have
insisted even more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even more
strongly (hard to imagine, but theoretically possible). Would that
give a quicker conquest of Toulouse, perhaps even before 1100, and
strengthen the French kings' authority also against other
semi-independent fiefs, such as Aquitaine?
I'd say that the 2nd option is more realistic: exterminate enemy
(and appropriate his lands) so that the whole issue of a potential
5th column is not there. Of course, it is an open question if
conquest COULD be done faster and in a more thorough way.
I think I agree, though if the French kings were not actually capable
of asserting their authority over southern France so early, where does
that leave us?
Not sure what you have in mind.
What I had in mind was that with a powerful Muslim Spain next door, the
issue of the Cathars would come to a head, at least for the religious
authorities, rather earlier than in OTL.
Not sure why would existence of the Muslim Spain mean serious difference
in timing. If anything, an absence of the Aragonian connection would
probably slow things down as far as the Kings of France were involved: the
rulers of Toulouse would probably be their vassals, not Aragonian.
From the purely secular point of view, that's probably true, but the people
of the time didn't think in purely secular terms (if they had, there
wouldn't have been any Crusades - some of the Crusaders were no doubt solely
on the make, but most of them were fired by religious enthusiasm). A united
Muslim Spain would be seen a serious threat by the Papacy, and they would
try to do something to counter it.

The Popes were able to do something at least as early as the time of the
First Crusade - wouldn't they try at least as hard to do something about the
more immediate threat from Muslim Spain?
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
IIRC, on its initial stages the Albigensian Crusade hardly get more
than a general "blessing" from the royal power (Phillip II to whom
Simon de Montfort eventually ceded Toulouse) and only after 1226 Louis
VIII interfered directly.
Well, I think this is the point. Before Louis VII, royal power hardly
operated at all in the southern provinces,
The 1st French king directly involved in the Albigensian crusades was
Louis VIII (strictly speaking, Phillip II but his crusade lasted only two
months).
Post by Pete Barrett
so if things come to a head then,
the only way to strengthen the area against Muslim Spain is to encourage
the local counts, which obviously means strengthening them.
to subdue the area, settle in it as many feudals from the North or
Il-de-France (King's vassals) as possible and negotiate a dynastic
marriage with the following transfer of succession to guarantee both
loyalty and military power. Having too powerful and too independent border
counts had both advantages and disadvantages. Probably more disadvantages
when the royal power was not too strong.
But were the Kings of France capable of asserting their authority in the
south so early?
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
If it had come to a head during Louis's reign,
To say "Louis's reign" about France is just as meaningful as to say
"Henry's reign" about England. :-)
Well, Louis VII was the only Louis I'd mentioned!
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
the royal power in the area
was weak, but Louis was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine
So this was Louis VII who had nothing to do with the Albigensian Crusade.
By the time when the Cathar doctrine was declared heretical (1176 Church
Council) his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine was annulled for 24 years.
I think the Cathars were cconsidered not quite 'us' long before that, but
you have a good point there. If the Pope in,say, 1150, wants to shore up
defences in Toulouse and Provence against Muslim Spain, he doesn't _have_ to
call in the King of France. An alternative would be to strengthen the local
rulers, in conjunction with the Cathars, who had not, this early, been
declared heretical.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
at the beginning of
his reign, and he may be more inclined to hold onto her and use Aquitaine
as a base for operations to defend southern France against the Muslims.
What this has to do with the Cathars? Besides, his ability to "use"
Aquitaine was limited to the right to use the LOCAL contingents (the
medieval tended to be very sensitive about these things).
Post by Pete Barrett
Which is more important to him, a son, or Christendom? (And in the case of
Post by Alex Milman
Louis,
that is _not_ a rhetorical question!)
I'm afraid that your count of Louises is a little bit off. :-)
One who was a religious freak (St.Louis) was 12 years old when his father,
Louis VIII, died and 15 when Treaty of Paris at Meaux had been signed. In
other words, pretty much irrelevant to the crusade which after the death
of Louis VIII was headed by Humbert V de Beaujeu. At the age of 15 he
could already be concerned about the Christendom but hardly about the son
which he did not, yet, had.
Louis VII was also rather religious, you know, and it's the time of Louis
VII's time I've been talking of. The Albigensian Crusade isn't a fixed event
- it could take place earlier in the changed circumstances, or not take
place at all.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Even in Philip II's reign, as you point out, the King didn't do much more
than go along with what the nobles and the Church were doing.
Phillip II had been busy with quite a few other things but Louis VIII was
directly involved and after his death the crusading affairs were under
control of his widow.
Post by Pete Barrett
That's when it
came to a head OTL, but it didn't matter, because there was no real
threat from Muslim Spain; in the ATL there would be. Could the Church
risk alienating the likes of Toulouse and Provence, when their strongest
proponent in the area was someone with as little power as Simon de Montfort,
Who managed to defeat Toulouse and Aragon.
Would the Pope have expected him to be able to do so, before hi actually
did? More to the point, would the Pope in the ATL expect that he'd be able
to defeat Muslim Spain? Because that's what the Pope wants - someone in
southern France powerful enough to at least hold Muslim Spain off, and
possibly to take the attack to them.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
and their enemies have a potential ally in Muslim Spain?
I'm not sure that the "Church" would be an ultimate authority on that
issue: there was also a King of France.
Post by Pete Barrett
It seems to me that
they would need someone stronger, and if that's not the King of France,
then who?
The timing is all important: prior to Phillip II there was very little the
kings of France could do but after his reign their power was clearly
asserted: de Monfort ceded Toulouse to the King. Of course, the whole
process was going back and forth for a while but ended up with a clear
strengthening of the royal authority.
de Montfort was so successful that it pretty well forced Louis VIII's hand -
it was assert royal authority in Toulouse and Provence or face losing any
possibility of doing so in the near future.
Post by Alex Milman
How things would develop in ATL would strongly depend on how active do we
want the Muslim state. If it is relatively quiet (and there are buffer
states on a border), then I'd say that OTL-like scenario is more likely.
Agreed. Though I do think it's very existence will have an effect.
Post by Alex Milman
However, if the Muslims keep pushing North or at least are conducting the
regular big scale raids (as was done in X - XI century by Almanzor), then
scenarios can be different.
There's a very tempting corridor east of the Pyrennees into Rousillon, and
seaborne rading is a definite possibility.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
The Duke of Aquitaine (who in OTL was also the KIng of England)? That
would open up its own political can of worms, it seems to me.
The Duke of Aquitaine would be defending his possessions, just as other
regional lords.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
By the peace terms of 1229 the County of Toulouse was incorporated into
the French crown. Prior to 1209 the ruling the nobility of Toulouse,
led by Count Raymond VI of Toulouse and the Trencavel family were
allies and vassals of the Crown of Aragon so the war had both religious
and "material" component.
In this ATL, with Aragon being absent (or too small to be important),
the land grab will remain on the list but the resistance would be
probably weaker: in OTL Aragon was providing a military help at least
until the Battle of Muret in 1213 where King Peter II of Aragon was
killed.
Post by Pete Barrett
I don't think there are any other realistic candidates to conquer
Occitania, so with that option off the table, it means shoring up one
or more of the great southern French fiefdoms to act as a bulwark
against Islam, and that may mean being more accomodating to their
religious eccentricities.
"Eventually Queen Blanche offered Raymond a treaty recognizing him as
ruler of Toulouse in exchange for his fighting the Cathars, returning
all church property, turning over his castles and destroying the
defenses of Toulouse. Moreover, Raymond had to marry his daughter Joan
to Louis' brother Alphonse, with the couple and their heirs obtaining
Toulouse after Raymond's death, and the inheritance reverting to the
king in the event that they did not have issue, as eventually proved to
be the case. Raymond agreed and signed the Treaty of Paris at Meaux on
April 12, 1229. He was then seized, whipped and briefly imprisoned."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade#Initial_success_1209_to_1215
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Inquisition was established only in 1234 to deal with the remaining
inheritance by marriage transferred the County to king's brother (and
eventually to the king).
--
Pete BARRETT
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-06-27 19:24:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have
insisted even more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even more
strongly (hard to imagine, but theoretically possible). Would that
give a quicker conquest of Toulouse, perhaps even before 1100, and
strengthen the French kings' authority also against other
semi-independent fiefs, such as Aquitaine?
I'd say that the 2nd option is more realistic: exterminate enemy
(and appropriate his lands) so that the whole issue of a potential
5th column is not there. Of course, it is an open question if
conquest COULD be done faster and in a more thorough way.
I think I agree, though if the French kings were not actually capable
of asserting their authority over southern France so early, where does
that leave us?
Not sure what you have in mind.
What I had in mind was that with a powerful Muslim Spain next door, the
issue of the Cathars would come to a head, at least for the religious
authorities, rather earlier than in OTL.
Not sure why would existence of the Muslim Spain mean serious difference
in timing. If anything, an absence of the Aragonian connection would
probably slow things down as far as the Kings of France were involved: the
rulers of Toulouse would probably be their vassals, not Aragonian.
From the purely secular point of view, that's probably true, but the people
of the time didn't think in purely secular terms (if they had, there
wouldn't have been any Crusades - some of the Crusaders were no doubt solely
on the make, but most of them were fired by religious enthusiasm). A united
Muslim Spain would be seen a serious threat by the Papacy, and they would
try to do something to counter it.
OTOH, it should not be forgotten that all these Church activities did not
prevent Aragon from joining Toulouse: the Cathars or not, the Counts and many
leading families were Aragon's vassals and it seems that the secular
considerations overweighed the religious ones.
Post by Pete Barrett
The Popes were able to do something at least as early as the time of the
First Crusade - wouldn't they try at least as hard to do something about the
more immediate threat from Muslim Spain?
Probably. They, and other religious leaders could preach the Crusade with
various degrees of success.

The interesting aspect would be (for me) a purely military one: would the
realistic crusaders be able to conquer the Peninsula if the Muslim state
there is reasonably strong? On one hand, for the French crusaders the route
to the fighting area is much shorter but OTOH, it would be probably much less
convenient for those from Germany. Actually, IIRC there WERE some crusaders
at the campaign which resulted in the Battle of Alarcos but have no idea
where did they came from and if their activities amounted to much more than the
pogroms (in which, among other people the Jewish mistress of King Alfonso VIII
was killed with all her family). We also know that Sir James ("The Black Douglas") Douglas went crusading in Spain with the heart of Robert the Bruce
(and, according to Sir Walter Scott, this impeccable authority on all things
medieval, there were crusaders coming into Spain in much later times, read
"The Lay of the Last Minstrel" if you have nothing else to so :-)).

OTOH, I'm not sure that the Papacy would be considering Spain as the main
area of "application" due to an absence of the holy places.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
IIRC, on its initial stages the Albigensian Crusade hardly get more
than a general "blessing" from the royal power (Phillip II to whom
Simon de Montfort eventually ceded Toulouse) and only after 1226 Louis
VIII interfered directly.
Well, I think this is the point. Before Louis VII, royal power hardly
operated at all in the southern provinces,
The 1st French king directly involved in the Albigensian crusades was
Louis VIII (strictly speaking, Phillip II but his crusade lasted only two
months).
Post by Pete Barrett
so if things come to a head then,
the only way to strengthen the area against Muslim Spain is to encourage
the local counts, which obviously means strengthening them.
to subdue the area, settle in it as many feudals from the North or
Il-de-France (King's vassals) as possible and negotiate a dynastic
marriage with the following transfer of succession to guarantee both
loyalty and military power. Having too powerful and too independent border
counts had both advantages and disadvantages. Probably more disadvantages
when the royal power was not too strong.
But were the Kings of France capable of asserting their authority in the
south so early?
Does not look so: serious attempts of consolidation started at the time of
Phillip II August and even he was quite busy elsewhere.

But then what WAS the royal authority at that time? A major feudal was
acknowledging King of France as his senior and had to raise troops at the
time of war but most of administration was in vassal's hands unless he was a
complete nincompoop allowing the direct appellations to the royal courts (as
was the case with the Black Prince, IIRC).
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
If it had come to a head during Louis's reign,
To say "Louis's reign" about France is just as meaningful as to say
"Henry's reign" about England. :-)
Well, Louis VII was the only Louis I'd mentioned!
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
the royal power in the area
was weak, but Louis was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine
So this was Louis VII who had nothing to do with the Albigensian Crusade.
By the time when the Cathar doctrine was declared heretical (1176 Church
Council) his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine was annulled for 24 years.
I think the Cathars were cconsidered not quite 'us' long before that,
Perhaps so but unofficially and until the official pronouncement had been
made they were the subjects of the Counts of Toulouse and nobody's business.
Raymond of Toulouse got himself into a trouble because he openly defied
decision of the Church Council.
Post by Pete Barrett
but
you have a good point there. If the Pope in,say, 1150, wants to shore up
defences in Toulouse and Provence against Muslim Spain, he doesn't _have_ to
call in the King of France.
He does not have to declare Cathars the heretics and to call for the crusade.
Appearance of King of France in the picture was a byproduct of these actions.
Of course, it can be at least assumed that strengthened French Kingdom was
looking for the tempting pieces of a real estate and so were the feudals of
the Northern and Central France.
Post by Pete Barrett
An alternative would be to strengthen the local
rulers, in conjunction with the Cathars, who had not, this early, been
declared heretical.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
at the beginning of
his reign, and he may be more inclined to hold onto her and use Aquitaine
as a base for operations to defend southern France against the Muslims.
What this has to do with the Cathars? Besides, his ability to "use"
Aquitaine was limited to the right to use the LOCAL contingents (the
medieval tended to be very sensitive about these things).
Post by Pete Barrett
Which is more important to him, a son, or Christendom? (And in the case of
Post by Alex Milman
Louis,
that is _not_ a rhetorical question!)
I'm afraid that your count of Louises is a little bit off. :-)
One who was a religious freak (St.Louis) was 12 years old when his father,
Louis VIII, died and 15 when Treaty of Paris at Meaux had been signed. In
other words, pretty much irrelevant to the crusade which after the death
of Louis VIII was headed by Humbert V de Beaujeu. At the age of 15 he
could already be concerned about the Christendom but hardly about the son
which he did not, yet, had.
Louis VII was also rather religious, you know, and it's the time of Louis
VII's time I've been talking of. The Albigensian Crusade isn't a fixed event
- it could take place earlier in the changed circumstances, or not take
place at all.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Even in Philip II's reign, as you point out, the King didn't do much more
than go along with what the nobles and the Church were doing.
Phillip II had been busy with quite a few other things but Louis VIII was
directly involved and after his death the crusading affairs were under
control of his widow.
Post by Pete Barrett
That's when it
came to a head OTL, but it didn't matter, because there was no real
threat from Muslim Spain; in the ATL there would be. Could the Church
risk alienating the likes of Toulouse and Provence, when their strongest
proponent in the area was someone with as little power as Simon de Montfort,
Who managed to defeat Toulouse and Aragon.
Would the Pope have expected him to be able to do so, before hi actually
did? More to the point, would the Pope in the ATL expect that he'd be able
to defeat Muslim Spain?
Now, THIS is a completely different thing because you are talking about the
territory which was much greater and military stronger than Toulouse. Even
its defeat would not mean a complete conquest. I'm not sure that it was
technically possible with the forces which were available: even fighting for
Toulouse lasted for a long time with the gains and losses and we are talking
about a relatively small territory.
Post by Pete Barrett
Because that's what the Pope wants - someone in
southern France powerful enough to at least hold Muslim Spain off, and
possibly to take the attack to them.
Well, at various times various popes had various ideas, some of them being
rather irrational, IMHO, like the Papal supremacy over the imperial power.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
and their enemies have a potential ally in Muslim Spain?
I'm not sure that the "Church" would be an ultimate authority on that
issue: there was also a King of France.
Post by Pete Barrett
It seems to me that
they would need someone stronger, and if that's not the King of France,
then who?
The timing is all important: prior to Phillip II there was very little the
kings of France could do but after his reign their power was clearly
asserted: de Monfort ceded Toulouse to the King. Of course, the whole
process was going back and forth for a while but ended up with a clear
strengthening of the royal authority.
de Montfort was so successful that it pretty well forced Louis VIII's hand -
it was assert royal authority in Toulouse and Provence or face losing any
possibility of doing so in the near future.
Indeed.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
How things would develop in ATL would strongly depend on how active do we
want the Muslim state. If it is relatively quiet (and there are buffer
states on a border), then I'd say that OTL-like scenario is more likely.
Agreed. Though I do think it's very existence will have an effect.
Post by Alex Milman
However, if the Muslims keep pushing North or at least are conducting the
regular big scale raids (as was done in X - XI century by Almanzor), then
scenarios can be different.
There's a very tempting corridor east of the Pyrennees into Rousillon, and
seaborne rading is a definite possibility.
Well, when I started this thread I was mostly interested in the later times,
XV - XVI centuries:

1. The wars between France and the Hapsburgs in an absence of Spain. With the
extension into the XVII - the different 30YW or its complete absence.

1a. Potential outcome of the Italian Wars (and, intermediate: tactical
developments in the absence of the Spanish model).

2. America being discovered later and not by Spain with a possibility of the
initial discovery being one of the North America and one of the Central and
South America (including Mexico) being delayed with a delayed appearance of
the American gold and silver in Europe (no devaluation but OTOH there could be
a monetary crisis if delay is too big).

2a. How the general situation would develop with the different "owners" of the
gold and silver if it happened in the XV - early XVI?

3. Changed situation on the Med in an absence of the Barbary Coast piracy (the
Ottomans are less powerful on the sea).
Pete Barrett
2017-06-28 16:42:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have
insisted even more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even
more strongly (hard to imagine, but theoretically possible).
Would that give a quicker conquest of Toulouse, perhaps even
before 1100, and strengthen the French kings' authority also
against other semi-independent fiefs, such as Aquitaine?
I'd say that the 2nd option is more realistic: exterminate enemy
(and appropriate his lands) so that the whole issue of a
potential 5th column is not there. Of course, it is an open
question if conquest COULD be done faster and in a more thorough
way.
I think I agree, though if the French kings were not actually
capable of asserting their authority over southern France so early,
where does that leave us?
Not sure what you have in mind.
What I had in mind was that with a powerful Muslim Spain next door,
the issue of the Cathars would come to a head, at least for the
religious authorities, rather earlier than in OTL.
Not sure why would existence of the Muslim Spain mean serious
difference in timing. If anything, an absence of the Aragonian
connection would probably slow things down as far as the Kings of
France were involved: the rulers of Toulouse would probably be their
vassals, not Aragonian.
From the purely secular point of view, that's probably true, but the
people of the time didn't think in purely secular terms (if they had,
there wouldn't have been any Crusades - some of the Crusaders were no
doubt solely on the make, but most of them were fired by religious
enthusiasm). A united Muslim Spain would be seen a serious threat by the
Papacy, and they would try to do something to counter it.
OTOH, it should not be forgotten that all these Church activities did not
prevent Aragon from joining Toulouse: the Cathars or not, the Counts and
many leading families were Aragon's vassals and it seems that the secular
considerations overweighed the religious ones.
Post by Pete Barrett
The Popes were able to do something at least as early as the time of the
First Crusade - wouldn't they try at least as hard to do something about
the more immediate threat from Muslim Spain?
Probably. They, and other religious leaders could preach the Crusade with
various degrees of success.
The interesting aspect would be (for me) a purely military one: would the
realistic crusaders be able to conquer the Peninsula if the Muslim state
there is reasonably strong? On one hand, for the French crusaders the
route to the fighting area is much shorter but OTOH, it would be probably
much less convenient for those from Germany. Actually, IIRC there WERE
some crusaders at the campaign which resulted in the Battle of Alarcos but
have no idea where did they came from and if their activities amounted to
much more than the pogroms (in which, among other people the Jewish
mistress of King Alfonso VIII was killed with all her family). We also
know that Sir James ("The Black Douglas") Douglas went crusading in Spain
with the heart of Robert the Bruce (and, according to Sir Walter Scott,
this impeccable authority on all things medieval, there were crusaders
coming into Spain in much later times, read "The Lay of the Last Minstrel"
if you have nothing else to so :-)).
There are many things to read in the world, and I'd have to be very bored
before I would start on Walter Scott!

But there were certainly Scots and English, and probably Germans and Dutch
as well, in the Second Crusade expedition which captured Lisbon on its way
to Palestine.
Post by Alex Milman
OTOH, I'm not sure that the Papacy would be considering Spain as the main
area of "application" due to an absence of the holy places.
Point taken, but even without Spain being especially holy, fighting there
counted as crusading later in the Middle Ages OTL, so there's every chance
it will in the ATL.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
IIRC, on its initial stages the Albigensian Crusade hardly get more
than a general "blessing" from the royal power (Phillip II to whom
Simon de Montfort eventually ceded Toulouse) and only after 1226
Louis VIII interfered directly.
Well, I think this is the point. Before Louis VII, royal power hardly
operated at all in the southern provinces,
The 1st French king directly involved in the Albigensian crusades was
Louis VIII (strictly speaking, Phillip II but his crusade lasted only
two months).
Post by Pete Barrett
so if things come to a head then,
the only way to strengthen the area against Muslim Spain is to
encourage the local counts, which obviously means strengthening them.
Not necessarily. An alternative way would be to act along the OTL
lines: to subdue the area, settle in it as many feudals from the North
or Il-de-France (King's vassals) as possible and negotiate a dynastic
marriage with the following transfer of succession to guarantee both
loyalty and military power. Having too powerful and too independent
border counts had both advantages and disadvantages. Probably more
disadvantages when the royal power was not too strong.
But were the Kings of France capable of asserting their authority in the
south so early?
Does not look so: serious attempts of consolidation started at the time of
Phillip II August and even he was quite busy elsewhere.
But then what WAS the royal authority at that time? A major feudal was
acknowledging King of France as his senior and had to raise troops at the
time of war but most of administration was in vassal's hands unless he was
a complete nincompoop allowing the direct appellations to the royal courts
(as was the case with the Black Prince, IIRC).
The BP was later, when French royal authority was much stronger, and when
the French kings were making serious attempts to exert it, especially
against the English, so I don't think that necessarily makes him a
nincompoop!
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
If it had come to a head during Louis's reign,
To say "Louis's reign" about France is just as meaningful as to say
"Henry's reign" about England. :-)
Well, Louis VII was the only Louis I'd mentioned!
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
the royal power in the area
was weak, but Louis was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine
So this was Louis VII who had nothing to do with the Albigensian
Crusade. By the time when the Cathar doctrine was declared heretical
(1176 Church Council) his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine was annulled
for 24 years.
I think the Cathars were cconsidered not quite 'us' long before that,
Perhaps so but unofficially and until the official pronouncement had been
made they were the subjects of the Counts of Toulouse and nobody's
business. Raymond of Toulouse got himself into a trouble because he openly
defied decision of the Church Council.
Post by Pete Barrett
but
you have a good point there. If the Pope in,say, 1150, wants to shore up
defences in Toulouse and Provence against Muslim Spain, he doesn't _have_
to call in the King of France.
He does not have to declare Cathars the heretics and to call for the
crusade. Appearance of King of France in the picture was a byproduct of
these actions. Of course, it can be at least assumed that strengthened
French Kingdom was looking for the tempting pieces of a real estate and so
were the feudals of the Northern and Central France.
Post by Pete Barrett
An alternative would be to strengthen the local
rulers, in conjunction with the Cathars, who had not, this early, been
declared heretical.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
at the beginning of
his reign, and he may be more inclined to hold onto her and use
Aquitaine as a base for operations to defend southern France against
the Muslims.
What this has to do with the Cathars? Besides, his ability to "use"
Aquitaine was limited to the right to use the LOCAL contingents (the
medieval tended to be very sensitive about these things).
Post by Pete Barrett
Which is more important to him, a son, or Christendom? (And in the case of
Post by Alex Milman
Louis,
that is _not_ a rhetorical question!)
I'm afraid that your count of Louises is a little bit off. :-)
One who was a religious freak (St.Louis) was 12 years old when his
father, Louis VIII, died and 15 when Treaty of Paris at Meaux had been
signed. In other words, pretty much irrelevant to the crusade which
after the death of Louis VIII was headed by Humbert V de Beaujeu. At
the age of 15 he could already be concerned about the Christendom but
hardly about the son which he did not, yet, had.
Louis VII was also rather religious, you know, and it's the time of Louis
VII's time I've been talking of. The Albigensian Crusade isn't a fixed
event - it could take place earlier in the changed circumstances, or not
take place at all.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Even in Philip II's reign, as you point out, the King didn't do much
more than go along with what the nobles and the Church were doing.
Phillip II had been busy with quite a few other things but Louis VIII
was directly involved and after his death the crusading affairs were
under control of his widow.
Post by Pete Barrett
That's when it
came to a head OTL, but it didn't matter, because there was no real
threat from Muslim Spain; in the ATL there would be. Could the Church
risk alienating the likes of Toulouse and Provence, when their
strongest proponent in the area was someone with as little power as
Simon de Montfort,
Who managed to defeat Toulouse and Aragon.
Would the Pope have expected him to be able to do so, before hi actually
did? More to the point, would the Pope in the ATL expect that he'd be
able to defeat Muslim Spain?
Now, THIS is a completely different thing because you are talking about
the territory which was much greater and military stronger than Toulouse.
Even its defeat would not mean a complete conquest. I'm not sure that it
was technically possible with the forces which were available: even
fighting for Toulouse lasted for a long time with the gains and losses and
we are talking about a relatively small territory.
Post by Pete Barrett
Because that's what the Pope wants - someone in
southern France powerful enough to at least hold Muslim Spain off, and
possibly to take the attack to them.
Well, at various times various popes had various ideas, some of them being
rather irrational, IMHO, like the Papal supremacy over the imperial power.
I wouldn't call the idea of defending southern France one of the irrational
ones.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
and their enemies have a potential ally in Muslim Spain?
I'm not sure that the "Church" would be an ultimate authority on that
issue: there was also a King of France.
Post by Pete Barrett
It seems to me that
they would need someone stronger, and if that's not the King of
France, then who?
The timing is all important: prior to Phillip II there was very little
the kings of France could do but after his reign their power was
clearly asserted: de Monfort ceded Toulouse to the King. Of course, the
whole process was going back and forth for a while but ended up with a
clear strengthening of the royal authority.
de Montfort was so successful that it pretty well forced Louis VIII's
hand - it was assert royal authority in Toulouse and Provence or face
losing any possibility of doing so in the near future.
Indeed.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
How things would develop in ATL would strongly depend on how active do
we want the Muslim state. If it is relatively quiet (and there are
buffer states on a border), then I'd say that OTL-like scenario is more
likely.
Agreed. Though I do think it's very existence will have an effect.
Post by Alex Milman
However, if the Muslims keep pushing North or at least are conducting
the regular big scale raids (as was done in X - XI century by
Almanzor), then scenarios can be different.
There's a very tempting corridor east of the Pyrennees into Rousillon,
and seaborne rading is a definite possibility.
Well, when I started this thread I was mostly interested in the later
You mean I've side-tracked you? I'm sure you've done the same to me in the
past! <g>
Post by Alex Milman
1. The wars between France and the Hapsburgs in an absence of Spain. With
the extension into the XVII - the different 30YW or its complete absence.
1a. Potential outcome of the Italian Wars (and, intermediate: tactical
developments in the absence of the Spanish model).
2. America being discovered later and not by Spain with a possibility of
the initial discovery being one of the North America and one of the
Central and South America (including Mexico) being delayed with a delayed
appearance of the American gold and silver in Europe (no devaluation but
OTOH there could be a monetary crisis if delay is too big).
2a. How the general situation would develop with the different "owners" of
the gold and silver if it happened in the XV - early XVI?
3. Changed situation on the Med in an absence of the Barbary Coast piracy
(the Ottomans are less powerful on the sea).
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-06-28 18:46:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have
insisted even more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even
more strongly (hard to imagine, but theoretically possible).
Would that give a quicker conquest of Toulouse, perhaps even
before 1100, and strengthen the French kings' authority also
against other semi-independent fiefs, such as Aquitaine?
I'd say that the 2nd option is more realistic: exterminate enemy
(and appropriate his lands) so that the whole issue of a
potential 5th column is not there. Of course, it is an open
question if conquest COULD be done faster and in a more thorough
way.
I think I agree, though if the French kings were not actually
capable of asserting their authority over southern France so early,
where does that leave us?
Not sure what you have in mind.
What I had in mind was that with a powerful Muslim Spain next door,
the issue of the Cathars would come to a head, at least for the
religious authorities, rather earlier than in OTL.
Not sure why would existence of the Muslim Spain mean serious
difference in timing. If anything, an absence of the Aragonian
connection would probably slow things down as far as the Kings of
France were involved: the rulers of Toulouse would probably be their
vassals, not Aragonian.
From the purely secular point of view, that's probably true, but the
people of the time didn't think in purely secular terms (if they had,
there wouldn't have been any Crusades - some of the Crusaders were no
doubt solely on the make, but most of them were fired by religious
enthusiasm). A united Muslim Spain would be seen a serious threat by the
Papacy, and they would try to do something to counter it.
OTOH, it should not be forgotten that all these Church activities did not
prevent Aragon from joining Toulouse: the Cathars or not, the Counts and
many leading families were Aragon's vassals and it seems that the secular
considerations overweighed the religious ones.
Post by Pete Barrett
The Popes were able to do something at least as early as the time of the
First Crusade - wouldn't they try at least as hard to do something about
the more immediate threat from Muslim Spain?
Probably. They, and other religious leaders could preach the Crusade with
various degrees of success.
The interesting aspect would be (for me) a purely military one: would the
realistic crusaders be able to conquer the Peninsula if the Muslim state
there is reasonably strong? On one hand, for the French crusaders the
route to the fighting area is much shorter but OTOH, it would be probably
much less convenient for those from Germany. Actually, IIRC there WERE
some crusaders at the campaign which resulted in the Battle of Alarcos but
have no idea where did they came from and if their activities amounted to
much more than the pogroms (in which, among other people the Jewish
mistress of King Alfonso VIII was killed with all her family). We also
know that Sir James ("The Black Douglas") Douglas went crusading in Spain
with the heart of Robert the Bruce (and, according to Sir Walter Scott,
this impeccable authority on all things medieval, there were crusaders
coming into Spain in much later times, read "The Lay of the Last Minstrel"
if you have nothing else to so :-)).
There are many things to read in the world, and I'd have to be very bored
before I would start on Walter Scott!
Well, he is for a certain age and, because you seemingly missed him when you
were young, just you wait until you reach ..er.. "the second childhood". :-)

[running for cover]
Post by Pete Barrett
But there were certainly Scots and English, and probably Germans and Dutch
as well, in the Second Crusade expedition which captured Lisbon on its way
to Palestine.
I was talking about the times well after the 2nd Crusade (Black Douglas died
in Spain in 1330).
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
OTOH, I'm not sure that the Papacy would be considering Spain as the main
area of "application" due to an absence of the holy places.
Point taken, but even without Spain being especially holy, fighting there
counted as crusading later in the Middle Ages OTL, so there's every chance
it will in the ATL.
Of course, you would not need the holy places to go to the crusade: AFAIK,
Prussia and Lithuania had been rather short on them but there were numerous
volunteers all the way to Tannenberg.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
IIRC, on its initial stages the Albigensian Crusade hardly get more
than a general "blessing" from the royal power (Phillip II to whom
Simon de Montfort eventually ceded Toulouse) and only after 1226
Louis VIII interfered directly.
Well, I think this is the point. Before Louis VII, royal power hardly
operated at all in the southern provinces,
The 1st French king directly involved in the Albigensian crusades was
Louis VIII (strictly speaking, Phillip II but his crusade lasted only
two months).
Post by Pete Barrett
so if things come to a head then,
the only way to strengthen the area against Muslim Spain is to
encourage the local counts, which obviously means strengthening them.
Not necessarily. An alternative way would be to act along the OTL
lines: to subdue the area, settle in it as many feudals from the North
or Il-de-France (King's vassals) as possible and negotiate a dynastic
marriage with the following transfer of succession to guarantee both
loyalty and military power. Having too powerful and too independent
border counts had both advantages and disadvantages. Probably more
disadvantages when the royal power was not too strong.
But were the Kings of France capable of asserting their authority in the
south so early?
Does not look so: serious attempts of consolidation started at the time of
Phillip II August and even he was quite busy elsewhere.
But then what WAS the royal authority at that time? A major feudal was
acknowledging King of France as his senior and had to raise troops at the
time of war but most of administration was in vassal's hands unless he was
a complete nincompoop allowing the direct appellations to the royal courts
(as was the case with the Black Prince, IIRC).
The BP was later, when French royal authority was much stronger,
Well, after the Poitiers it was hardly "stronger" but it did exist at leastin a theory and it was tempting to appeal to it when your overlord is excessively
fond of the good plain extortion and other similar methods.
Post by Pete Barrett
and when
the French kings were making serious attempts to exert it, especially
against the English,
As it was said in "The Good soldier Shweik", don't be an idiot by letting people
to shoot at you! :-)

The English side had all advantages but managed to screw up royally in a
paperwork. And Ed was systematically making things worse by mismanaging his
territory in France. By the end the King of France started looking as a more
attractive option to the locals even if their economic interests had been
closely linked to England. And his main way to react to the events was along
the lines of the massacre of Limoges (and destruction of its enamel industry
in a process).
Post by Pete Barrett
so I don't think that necessarily makes him a
nincompoop!
Well, he clearly was in all things non-military. Not such a rare case when a
good general proves to be a lousy administrator.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
If it had come to a head during Louis's reign,
To say "Louis's reign" about France is just as meaningful as to say
"Henry's reign" about England. :-)
Well, Louis VII was the only Louis I'd mentioned!
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
the royal power in the area
was weak, but Louis was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine
So this was Louis VII who had nothing to do with the Albigensian
Crusade. By the time when the Cathar doctrine was declared heretical
(1176 Church Council) his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine was annulled
for 24 years.
I think the Cathars were cconsidered not quite 'us' long before that,
Perhaps so but unofficially and until the official pronouncement had been
made they were the subjects of the Counts of Toulouse and nobody's
business. Raymond of Toulouse got himself into a trouble because he openly
defied decision of the Church Council.
Post by Pete Barrett
but
you have a good point there. If the Pope in,say, 1150, wants to shore up
defences in Toulouse and Provence against Muslim Spain, he doesn't _have_
to call in the King of France.
He does not have to declare Cathars the heretics and to call for the
crusade. Appearance of King of France in the picture was a byproduct of
these actions. Of course, it can be at least assumed that strengthened
French Kingdom was looking for the tempting pieces of a real estate and so
were the feudals of the Northern and Central France.
Post by Pete Barrett
An alternative would be to strengthen the local
rulers, in conjunction with the Cathars, who had not, this early, been
declared heretical.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
at the beginning of
his reign, and he may be more inclined to hold onto her and use
Aquitaine as a base for operations to defend southern France against
the Muslims.
What this has to do with the Cathars? Besides, his ability to "use"
Aquitaine was limited to the right to use the LOCAL contingents (the
medieval tended to be very sensitive about these things).
Post by Pete Barrett
Which is more important to him, a son, or Christendom? (And in the case of
Post by Alex Milman
Louis,
that is _not_ a rhetorical question!)
I'm afraid that your count of Louises is a little bit off. :-)
One who was a religious freak (St.Louis) was 12 years old when his
father, Louis VIII, died and 15 when Treaty of Paris at Meaux had been
signed. In other words, pretty much irrelevant to the crusade which
after the death of Louis VIII was headed by Humbert V de Beaujeu. At
the age of 15 he could already be concerned about the Christendom but
hardly about the son which he did not, yet, had.
Louis VII was also rather religious, you know, and it's the time of Louis
VII's time I've been talking of. The Albigensian Crusade isn't a fixed
event - it could take place earlier in the changed circumstances, or not
take place at all.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Even in Philip II's reign, as you point out, the King didn't do much
more than go along with what the nobles and the Church were doing.
Phillip II had been busy with quite a few other things but Louis VIII
was directly involved and after his death the crusading affairs were
under control of his widow.
Post by Pete Barrett
That's when it
came to a head OTL, but it didn't matter, because there was no real
threat from Muslim Spain; in the ATL there would be. Could the Church
risk alienating the likes of Toulouse and Provence, when their
strongest proponent in the area was someone with as little power as
Simon de Montfort,
Who managed to defeat Toulouse and Aragon.
Would the Pope have expected him to be able to do so, before hi actually
did? More to the point, would the Pope in the ATL expect that he'd be
able to defeat Muslim Spain?
Now, THIS is a completely different thing because you are talking about
the territory which was much greater and military stronger than Toulouse.
Even its defeat would not mean a complete conquest. I'm not sure that it
was technically possible with the forces which were available: even
fighting for Toulouse lasted for a long time with the gains and losses and
we are talking about a relatively small territory.
Post by Pete Barrett
Because that's what the Pope wants - someone in
southern France powerful enough to at least hold Muslim Spain off, and
possibly to take the attack to them.
Well, at various times various popes had various ideas, some of them being
rather irrational, IMHO, like the Papal supremacy over the imperial power.
I wouldn't call the idea of defending southern France one of the irrational
ones.
But it would not be a Papal responsibility.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Pete Barrett
and their enemies have a potential ally in Muslim Spain?
I'm not sure that the "Church" would be an ultimate authority on that
issue: there was also a King of France.
Post by Pete Barrett
It seems to me that
they would need someone stronger, and if that's not the King of
France, then who?
The timing is all important: prior to Phillip II there was very little
the kings of France could do but after his reign their power was
clearly asserted: de Monfort ceded Toulouse to the King. Of course, the
whole process was going back and forth for a while but ended up with a
clear strengthening of the royal authority.
de Montfort was so successful that it pretty well forced Louis VIII's
hand - it was assert royal authority in Toulouse and Provence or face
losing any possibility of doing so in the near future.
Indeed.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
How things would develop in ATL would strongly depend on how active do
we want the Muslim state. If it is relatively quiet (and there are
buffer states on a border), then I'd say that OTL-like scenario is more
likely.
Agreed. Though I do think it's very existence will have an effect.
Post by Alex Milman
However, if the Muslims keep pushing North or at least are conducting
the regular big scale raids (as was done in X - XI century by
Almanzor), then scenarios can be different.
There's a very tempting corridor east of the Pyrennees into Rousillon,
and seaborne rading is a definite possibility.
Well, when I started this thread I was mostly interested in the later
You mean I've side-tracked you?
Rather I failed to distract you from your narrative. :-)
Post by Pete Barrett
I'm sure you've done the same to me in the
past! <g>
:-)
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
1. The wars between France and the Hapsburgs in an absence of Spain. With
the extension into the XVII - the different 30YW or its complete absence.
1a. Potential outcome of the Italian Wars (and, intermediate: tactical
developments in the absence of the Spanish model).
2. America being discovered later and not by Spain with a possibility of
the initial discovery being one of the North America and one of the
Central and South America (including Mexico) being delayed with a delayed
appearance of the American gold and silver in Europe (no devaluation but
OTOH there could be a monetary crisis if delay is too big).
2a. How the general situation would develop with the different "owners" of
the gold and silver if it happened in the XV - early XVI?
3. Changed situation on the Med in an absence of the Barbary Coast piracy
(the Ottomans are less powerful on the sea).
--
Pete BARRETT
Pete Barrett
2017-06-29 17:15:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Well, he is for a certain age and, because you seemingly missed him when
you were young, just you wait until you reach ..er.. "the second
childhood". :-)
[running for cover]
Perhaps I should buy all his novels in anticipation! <g>
--
Pete BARRETT
kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
2017-06-29 17:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Perhaps I should buy all his novels in anticipation! <g>
"The lay of the last minstrel" is an epic poem, Scott started as a poet
and became a novelist later in fact "Waverly" and other early novels were
published anonymously and IIRC Scott was asked to review one off his own
novels. His early stuff is best, his later work was written as fast as
possible and not revised. This was due to him being in debt and not able
to go bankrupt without losing his house.
Pete Barrett
2017-07-01 15:15:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Post by Pete Barrett
Perhaps I should buy all his novels in anticipation! <g>
"The lay of the last minstrel" is an epic poem,
Byron called it a 'black-letter ballad imitation' (quoting from (probably
faulty) memory). I wouldn't take Byron's taste in poetry as infallible, but
he doesn't seem to have been keen on this one.
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Scott started as a poet
and became a novelist later in fact "Waverly" and other early novels were
published anonymously and IIRC Scott was asked to review one off his own
novels. His early stuff is best, his later work was written as fast as
possible and not revised. This was due to him being in debt and not able
to go bankrupt without losing his house.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-07-01 18:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 11:15:52 AM novels in anticipation! <g>
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
"The lay of the last minstrel" is an epic poem,
Byron called it a 'black-letter ballad imitation' (quoting from (probably
faulty) memory). I wouldn't take Byron's taste in poetry as infallible, but
he doesn't seem to have been keen on this one.
Well, I was not keen about Byron's "Don Juan": he obviously suffered from an
excessive verbosity. :-)


Prosper Merimee, when writing about Pushkin's "Anchar" (a verse of 36 lines)
remarked that Byron would manage to make a very long poem out of the subject (Merimee himself belonged to the "short and to the point" type of writers).
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Scott started as a poet
and became a novelist later in fact "Waverly" and other early novels were
published anonymously and IIRC Scott was asked to review one off his own
novels. His early stuff is best, his later work was written as fast as
possible and not revised. This was due to him being in debt and not able
to go bankrupt without losing his house.
--
Pete BARRETT
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-06-24 16:37:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
Inquisition was not Spanish invention. It started in XII century France
and legalized by Papacy in 1252 at which time the torture of the heretics
was officially allowed.
It was targetted against the Albigensian heretics in Provence and Toulouse
and southern France generally. Which brings up an obvious question - how
would the existence of a unified, and presumably more or less hostile,
Muslim Spain affect the religious and political history of southern France?
One possibility is that the Church would be more accomodating, fearing that
the Cathars could serve as a fifth column in any Muslim attack on the area.
(The fact that Cathar beliefs had almost nothing in common with Islam is
neither here nor there, because it's clear that the people of the time had
almost no knowledge of Muslim beliefs (an ignorance equalled only by the
Muslims' ignorance of Christian beliefs), so they wouldn't have realised
Eastern Christians and Muslims knew each other quite well.

It was the Catholics / Western Europeans / "The Franks"
Muslims were disinterested in.
Post by Pete Barrett
that.) That probably strengthens the major southern French states (Toulouse
and Provence) in their attempt to remain practically independent of the
French kings.
Another is that, for exactly the same reason, they would have insisted even
more on orthodoxy and attacked the Cathars even more strongly (hard to
imagine, but theoretically possible). Would that give a quicker conquest of
Toulouse, perhaps even before 1100, and strengthen the French kings'
authority also against other semi-independent fiefs, such as Aquitaine?
--
Pete BARRETT
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-25 01:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
One possibility is that the Church would be more accomodating, fearing that
the Cathars could serve as a fifth column in any Muslim attack on the area.
I don't think the Cathars were thought of as Moslem sympathizers
so much as they were viewed as enemies of the Church, and
therefore possible allies of the Moslems. Remember that many
Orthodox Christians in the Balkans were more hostile to the Roman
Catholic authority than to the Moslems, because the Moslems
would not seek to meddle with their religious practice.

("Better the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the Pope!")

The Cathars could have a similar attitude. It is unlikely that
the Church would ever trust them.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-25 13:51:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Pete Barrett
One possibility is that the Church would be more accomodating, fearing that
the Cathars could serve as a fifth column in any Muslim attack on the area.
I don't think the Cathars were thought of as Moslem sympathizers
so much as they were viewed as enemies of the Church, and
therefore possible allies of the Moslems. Remember that many
Orthodox Christians in the Balkans were more hostile to the Roman
Catholic authority than to the Moslems, because the Moslems
would not seek to meddle with their religious practice.
("Better the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the Pope!")
Well, IIRC, this was from a different period and had little to do with
the Orthodox Christians. But the principle is solid. :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Cathars could have a similar attitude. It is unlikely that
the Church would ever trust them.
And don't forget that they lived in a rich area, which was an additional
stimulus for the pious invaders from a much poorer North ("Help yourself
and God will help you" or something to that effect).
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-25 02:02:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
If instead Moslems own both ends of the Med, it's
going to be very hard for Italy, which will be
practically besieged from three sides.
in OTL they kept fighting with each other until the
Ottomans took over.
The Moslems of the Balkans, of Tunisia/Algeria, and
of Iberia are all in position to strike at Italy,
but not really to clash with each other. (Morocco
and Iberia is different.)

In any case I was thinking mostly of raids.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-25 13:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
If instead Moslems own both ends of the Med, it's
going to be very hard for Italy, which will be
practically besieged from three sides.
in OTL they kept fighting with each other until the
Ottomans took over.
The Moslems of the Balkans, of Tunisia/Algeria, and
of Iberia are all in position to strike at Italy,
but not really to clash with each other. (Morocco
and Iberia is different.)
In any case I was thinking mostly of raids.
IIRC, after the initial wave of the Muslim conquests the serious raids
(as a national industry) started after the end of Reconquista when the
big numbers of Muslims had been forced to live their country with pretty
much nothing.
Loading...