AHC: Catalonia and Occitania Switch

Wow, that’s a highly artificial name.
Heh, there wasn't a name or a toponyim avaible, so they kinda had to elaborate one.
Aquitania/Guyenne was already used by Plantagenets, Pro(v)ensa was far too broad, and Tolsan was far too narrow and wasn't included initially in the Capetian held regions of Lower Languedoc.

You'd notice that Occitania fell into disuse (altough the Archbishop of Narbonne kept being called Occitaniae Primus) when French kings took over Aquitaine, then Provence.
 
The wiki page of occitano-romance says that Provencals also called themselves as catalans.
Very litterally, the wiki page says that a traditional song in Marseille was said to be Catalan (does La Marseillaise being the French anthem means that French people consider themselves Provencals?), and that Catalan could be sometimes used to name Old Occitan.
This is not the same thing, by far, than claiming that Provencals called themselves Catalans.

That a recurring name for Catalan language was "Lemosin" between the XIIth century (altough it could serve to name Old Occitan as a whole) up to the XIXth doesn't mean at the latest that Catalans considered themselves as Limousins.
 
My dear @LSCatilina, I would like to say I highly respect your expertise on a wide numbers of fields, but here we have some misunderstandings and some disagreements.

Not exactly : Occitania (as in "Pars Occitaniae") is an hybridation of "Aquitainia" and "Oc" to designate the region, stressing Capetian claims over southern France, and had a vague definition until the XIVth. It does have a linguistical component, but is quite political and in relation with the Kingdom of France (basically it was claimed that the French king ruled both Occitania and Oilitania: the concept, obviously, didn't last)

"Langudeoc" comes from other uses such as "Patria Lingua Occitaniae" (the land of the Occitan language), but stress more the linguistical part, which is understable as Estates Generals up to the late XVth were divided in French speaking and Occitan-speaking assemblies.

Eventually, as Capetians took more and more Occitanophone regions, Occitania fell into disuse in favour of expanded regional names as Gascony, while Languedoc was "specialized" into the regions first conquered (and without a clear toponym even in the XIIth, apart Tolsan).

So, indeed, both names have a common origin, aren't entierly similar in use altough largely overlapping themselves : but Occitania does predate Languedoc.
Yes, sure, but my point was "Occitania" is a latin word. I do not recall any other french word apart from "Languedoc".


Which was not what was argued : Catalan linguistic differenciation is a by-product of the establishment of Barcelonese and Aragonese chanceries and the firmly established and definitive political differenciation.
While the Crusade was certainly the last and more radical last straw on this regard, it's likely IMO that Catalan would have gone a similar way than Bearnese (a sub-dialect of Gascon) in Navarre-Bearn, that is its own chancery and intellectual basis, making it quite distinct up to the XVIIth century. See, the distinction between transpyrenean and cispyrenean Occitan comes from a long way that can be traced at least from the Xth century (geopolitically wise) and the Great Southern War (which is a conflict barely known, but basically it's a Occitan HYW that last from the XIIth to the very early XIIIth century between the Raimondins and the House of Barcelona, with Trencavel and other lords switching sides, and Plantagenets and Caetians playing guests stars) was another sign of this growing distinction.
The Barcelona chancery (as the poor excuse for a chancery used by the Toulouse) used latin exclusively until the 13th c.

Which is a bit irrelevant : at this point, the problem in Toulouse was that a part of the population was supporting Crusaders (for exemple, the White Company led by the bishop) and the city had to deal with this kind of disorder. Toulouse being a remarkably free city, a part of the population was
It says nothing about the differenciation between Occitan and Catalan.
The White confraternity affair was years before the Crusade, relating to usury. The declaration of Raymond VII is not aimed at Toulousains, as they were probably dealt with before, as the extensive sales in 1218 tend to show, but to others. This is one of the very few political acts in which the count claims authority on any Occitan speaker ; a more usual way would have been to use a feudal or political term ("fideles nostri", "vassali nostri", "homines de terra nostra"...)

You're mixing a lot of stuff there.
- Estates Generals were a general gathering of notables, which were divided on French and Occitan speaking assemblies (and not specifically Languedoc), and they were merged in 1484.
- Provincial Estates tended to became, from the XVIth onwards, administrative chambers rather than deliberative (or even less representative), and suppletive/supportive of the bureaucratic state, rather than autonomies. The same could be said about the Particular Estates (sort of sub-Provincial Estates) which were both plethoric and not that relevant in Languedoc.
- Fiscal autonomy was technically coming from Provincial Estates, but in truth, were more issued from the balance of power between nobility and royal authority (such as the conflict between Richelieu and Montmorency highlights).
- Written Law, such as the Custom of Toulouse, was only formalized during the Crusade, by Simon de Montfort. Not that you didn't have written codex, but it was rather a mix of Theodosian and Alaric Laws applied diversly.

There's other apparatus in Languedoc (or, arguably, in all the regions of France as it was far from being a sole case), but the rule is that by the XVth onwards, they're growingly symbolic, tied to the royal state apparatus, heavily frenchified, and not really identitarian based.
This is the great misunderstanding on this board and the Anglo-American members particulary about the Ancien Régime administration ; these institutions were created in stages, by the royal power, as for its affirmation.
Estates provincials were called Estates Generals, to distinguished them from the Particular Estates, such as Velay or Albigeois. Even if they were not efficient vis-a-vis the royal centralization, these institutions still existed, they still had power, and especially they cultivated the cultural distinction of the province. Need I remind you of the Histoire générale de Languedoc ?

Written Law is not a reference to the Customs, but to the fact the judges used Roman Law ("the" written law) even in front of a custom. It is a distinct legal system than the one in northern France, where customs were written down (that is, validated in a closed corpus) much latter. As for the Custom of Toulouse, Montfort has nothing to do with it. While certain local rules were in used since at least the end of the 12th c., the first references to a written corpus are the 1250', the first attempts to have a validated corpus 1268 and the final royal agreement is 1286. But that did not prevent local judges to know and to use Roman Law.

If it was the case, it would be with a Parliment of Paris which would be hegemonic, and with fewer regional Parliments being created.
I was using "parliamentary" in the constitutional sense of a legislative assembly. On the french-particular Parliament topic, the Parliament of Paris was the only court, but with a particular chamber for Roman Law (auditoire de droit écrit), before the Toulouse Parliament was created, especially because of the legal systems distinction.

I mostly agree, but this is not really going to happen unless we tweak enough with the Xth century. Southern France was particularily divided territorially, due to the War of Succession of Auvergne/Aquitaine in the Xth century (which more or less broke the region into three distinct political ensemble : Auvergne, Aquitaine, Tolsan), the conflicts between Toulouse and Barcelone in the XIth/XIIth century, and the Great Southern War, aformentioned.

While Barcelone maintained a certain unity, when Raimondins attempted it, it provoked a set of nasty conflicts, as the region was simply too divided to really be more than locally unified. Think Italy in Middle-Ages scale.
The only reason why Raimondins acknwoledged Peire II's authority in 1212 was because they needed an ally and that the French king refused to take sides even when asked. On a political takeover sense, neither Raimondins and Barcelonese/Aragonese had a real possibility putting this, especially as their conflict already began to create a distinction.

Now, it's not impossible to see an Occitan principalty pulling a Milan and at least attempting to form a regional hegemony with enough luck. Truth to be told, @phil03 is working on such TL (I really should focus on making the skeleton of the tl this week) with a PoD during the Crusade.
I mostly agree with you, but let us not forget a more simpler evolution : personal union. The Barcelona could go for a Toulouse heiress, as they did in Provence. Given the small size of the Toulouse countal house, it would be a simple way to unite both principalities.
 
Yes, sure, but my point was "Occitania" is a latin word. I do not recall any other french word apart from "Languedoc".

The Barcelona chancery (as the poor excuse for a chancery used by the Toulouse) used latin exclusively until the 13th c.
As all continental chanceries : the point is not that it set a standard for the language, rather that it set an institution with formal standards that are then "vulgarized", either to more popular customs, or to later chanceries.

The White confraternity affair was years before the Crusade, relating to usury.
It was structured in 1210 and not years before the Crusade, and was charged to "track down heretics and usurers", as usury was often associated with heterodoxy and heresy by Folquet of Marseilles, bishop of the city. It's most definitely a product of the political and religious infighting within Toulouse (with the "Black Confraternity"), and certainly a point on which the authorities of the city and the Younger Count (for people interested, Raimondins had a tradition of dual rulership, with both the Count and his son were counts, the son usually acting as a junior ruler).

Part of the WHite Confraternity leaved Toulouse with Folquet when Toulouse became a target of Crusade (far from all, of course, and the city was almost in the misdt of a civil war until 1211) and banded together with Crusaders, notably with the Siege of Lavaur. As the case of Baudouin de Toulouse highlights, both Counts had to stress their authority on the native population, of "their language" (among population of a cosmopolite city, and among a band of Crusaders which were far from sharing his own).

The declaration of Raymond VII is not aimed at Toulousains, as they were probably dealt with before, as the extensive sales in 1218 tend to show, but to others. This is one of the very few political acts in which the count claims authority on any Occitan speaker ; a more usual way would have been to use a feudal or political term ("fideles nostri", "vassali nostri", "homines de terra nostra"...)
It was aimed at the consuls of Toulouse (IRRC) that were the main authorities of the city even before the Counts, in a context of regional war (with understones of civil war).
Now, I admit I misread 1220 for 1210, which lead to the previous mistake.
That said, the point still helds IMO : the distinction between two languages is something you find in other sources, and probably as a by-product of the Crusade which brang the opposition between Occitan-speaking persons (parts of it joining with Crusaders) and Crusaders reputed to speak French (which is false, of course, even disregarding the first point : you had Auvergnats, French, German troops).

On this regard, the Count is not claiming any authority on every Occitan-speaker, but validate for the Consuls and the city of Toulouse at large the right to act against who joined the fight against the Count, but only those "of our language, meaning our own speech". There was cleaning the mess and gathering supporters, and there was stricking back senslessly in a period where Raimond tries to negociate with Crusaders and the king. Raimond simply can't afford part of the city to act against him, not after Louis of France's campaign the year before.

While the distinction between two parts of the realm, one Occitan the other French speaking, is not entierly due to Capetian influence (altough they took a large, very large part in it), it was fairly recent and not tracable earlier than the 1210's in texts. IIRC, the first mention is by the archbishop of Narbonne that say that the people of "Gallic speech" entered the city without his authorisation and in arms.


Estates provincials were called Estates Generals, to distinguished them from the Particular Estates, such as Velay or Albigeois.
I English, Estates Generals tends to name more properly the Etats Généraux. As for Etats Provinciaux, they were generally called as Etats from [insert Province]. Namely, Etats du Languedoc, in our case, or admittedly, Etats Généraux of [insert Province]

Even if they were not efficient vis-a-vis the royal centralization
It's not as much they weren't efficient : it's that they were created by the royal power in a perspective of unification and systematisation of the territory. Asking from these regional assemblies of the nobility and upper classes to clash, even slightly, with the main purposes of the royal power would have been too much honestly : the Estates of Languedoc survived mostly because they had the political sense to ally with miscontents outside the province, and because Richelieu didn't want to press the matter too much even in victory.

[QUOTEand especially they cultivated the cultural distinction of the province. Need I remind you of the Histoire générale de Languedoc ?[/QUOTE]
Which have little to do with the efficience, power or autonomy of the Estates, tough. The book was about presenting the province in the best of lights, and Dom Vaisette mixed his own scholar interest with the will of depicting it as a vibrant part of the whole kingdom (see his other works), not about arguing for the autonomy or particularism.

Written Law is not a reference to the Customs, but to the fact the judges used Roman Law ("the" written law) even in front of a custom.
Theodosian Law and Alaric Law weren't as much written down in legal process, than largely knew and providing a standard of validation. Even there, the codification played a relatively secondary role before the commentaries, jurisprudence, etc. Still, it's what existed for the main part of judicial process in southern France.
The influence of Roman law strictly speaking was relatively recent there, with a strong Italian influence. This met, from the 1160's/1170's, a dynamism of urban freedoms born out of the geopolitical mess of the region. What was essentially at first a judicial ensemble tailored for merchants and trade representative, met with a common right based on Roman law itself.

But that did not prevent local judges to know and to use Roman Law.
It didn't prevented people in Northrn France to use it either : but the difference is that it didn't mixed-up with urban freedoms and judicial corpus, "popularizing" it in common affairs.
It took time, however, way beyond the rest of the County's lifespawn, mostly because it wasn't widely accepted : Peire Cardinal consider it to be nothing but cheating and pedantism, for instance, and you'd have to wait decades to find ONE legist as part of the Count's council.

As for the Custom of Toulouse, Montfort has nothing to do with it.
Mea culpa, I meant Alphonse de Poitiers (that's what I get for posting at work).
See, before the creation of the University of Toulouse from one part, and the political support of the legists, Roman Law was often ill-considered and not institutionalized.It's really the Capetian presence that gave it a boost as the regular judicial basis of the region : before the XIVth century, the distinction between Pays de Droit Ecrit, and Pays de Droit Commun is mostly senseless.

May I advise you Henry Gilles on this? The work is a bit old, but tourough.

I mostly agree with you, but let us not forget a more simpler evolution : personal union. The Barcelona could go for a Toulouse heiress, as they did in Provence. Given the small size of the Toulouse countal house, it would be a simple way to unite both principalities.
I remain largely unconvinced there.
The small size of the Raimondins is debatable for anything befoe the XIIth century : Dom Vaisette simply let too many gaps and blanks in his works (remember that he left out three counts out of his comput). True, the lack of archives maintained or correctly put together didn't help him, but at least we don't know enough about the spawn of the Raimondine house to affirm it was reduced. Heck, several cadet branches did survived its extinction.

Which bring the other point : a good part of the support for Raimondines was both dynastical but as well political (see how Toulouse fought back Guilhèm's claims on Tolsan) and the men of Raimondins weren't really ready to follow a Barcelonese duke they would have fought mere years before, IMO : Barcelone and Toulouse seems like a good depiction of hereditary foes and their conflcit led to a local and fierce Hundred Years War (that and the conflicts earlier, arguably lasting nearly one century as well). I doubt such succession would be smooth, to say the least, even taking in account that a matrimonial policy directed at Barcelona doesn't make this much sense for Toulouse (you could argue, I concede it, that it could be part of a peace settlement contract)
 
I fear we would never agree.
As all continental chanceries : the point is not that it set a standard for the language, rather that it set an institution with formal standards that are then "vulgarized", either to more popular customs, or to later chanceries.


It was structured in 1210 and not years before the Crusade, and was charged to "track down heretics and usurers", as usury was often associated with heterodoxy and heresy by Folquet of Marseilles, bishop of the city. It's most definitely a product of the political and religious infighting within Toulouse (with the "Black Confraternity"), and certainly a point on which the authorities of the city and the Younger Count (for people interested, Raimondins had a tradition of dual rulership, with both the Count and his son were counts, the son usually acting as a junior ruler).

Part of the WHite Confraternity leaved Toulouse with Folquet when Toulouse became a target of Crusade (far from all, of course, and the city was almost in the misdt of a civil war until 1211) and banded together with Crusaders, notably with the Siege of Lavaur. As the case of Baudouin de Toulouse highlights, both Counts had to stress their authority on the native population, of "their language" (among population of a cosmopolite city, and among a band of Crusaders which were far from sharing his own).

Not years, agreed, but before the full-blown war. Especially, before the first siege of Toulouse. Puylaurens specifically wrote that the confraternity came back to Toulouse before the Crusaders began their assault. Many Toulousains, such as Pons de Capdenier, were devout catholics and allies of Bishop Folquet while at the same time serving the count and defending the town.


It was aimed at the consuls of Toulouse (IRRC) that were the main authorities of the city even before the Counts, in a context of regional war (with understones of civil war).
Now, I admit I misread 1220 for 1210, which lead to the previous mistake.
That said, the point still helds IMO : the distinction between two languages is something you find in other sources, and probably as a by-product of the Crusade which brang the opposition between Occitan-speaking persons (parts of it joining with Crusaders) and Crusaders reputed to speak French (which is false, of course, even disregarding the first point : you had Auvergnats, French, German troops).

On this regard, the Count is not claiming any authority on every Occitan-speaker, but validate for the Consuls and the city of Toulouse at large the right to act against who joined the fight against the Count, but only those "of our language, meaning our own speech". There was cleaning the mess and gathering supporters, and there was stricking back senslessly in a period where Raimond tries to negociate with Crusaders and the king. Raimond simply can't afford part of the city to act against him, not after Louis of France's campaign the year before.

While the distinction between two parts of the realm, one Occitan the other French speaking, is not entierly due to Capetian influence (altough they took a large, very large part in it), it was fairly recent and not tracable earlier than the 1210's in texts. IIRC, the first mention is by the archbishop of Narbonne that say that the people of "Gallic speech" entered the city without his authorisation and in arms.

At the time, the Count was really in a precarious position in front of the town's council. There is a string of privileges granted starting in 1219 and going on in the 1220'. Raymond VII tried later to crash down on Toulouse's autonomy, with mixed success. If the 1220 privilege is in fact a restriction, why allow for any kind of repraisal outside of the count's court ? Striking down an Auvergne crusader was not very helping for the count.



I English, Estates Generals tends to name more properly the Etats Généraux. As for Etats Provinciaux, they were generally called as Etats from [insert Province]. Namely, Etats du Languedoc, in our case, or admittedly, Etats Généraux of [insert Province]


It's not as much they weren't efficient : it's that they were created by the royal power in a perspective of unification and systematisation of the territory. Asking from these regional assemblies of the nobility and upper classes to clash, even slightly, with the main purposes of the royal power would have been too much honestly : the Estates of Languedoc survived mostly because they had the political sense to ally with miscontents outside the province, and because Richelieu didn't want to press the matter too much even in victory.


Which have little to do with the efficience, power or autonomy of the Estates, tough. The book was about presenting the province in the best of lights, and Dom Vaisette mixed his own scholar interest with the will of depicting it as a vibrant part of the whole kingdom (see his other works), not about arguing for the autonomy or particularism.

The institutions of Languedoc were created by the Capetian royal power, of course. But their continuing existence could be a base for later-day autonomy or independence claims. Catalan institutions were not always frontal adversaries of the royal power (see Pierre Vidal), that did not prevent for the late 19th c. rise of catalanism. Institution-wise, the Etats de Languedoc and the Corts were very similar (three estates or arms, ecclesiastical presidency, permanent commission between sessions). What would have happen if Montmorency prevailed over Richelieu or if Catalonia was annexed whole by Mazarin ? We are in an alternative history forum, after all.

Theodosian Law and Alaric Law weren't as much written down in legal process, than largely knew and providing a standard of validation. Even there, the codification played a relatively secondary role before the commentaries, jurisprudence, etc. Still, it's what existed for the main part of judicial process in southern France.
The influence of Roman law strictly speaking was relatively recent there, with a strong Italian influence. This met, from the 1160's/1170's, a dynamism of urban freedoms born out of the geopolitical mess of the region. What was essentially at first a judicial ensemble tailored for merchants and trade representative, met with a common right based on Roman law itself.


It didn't prevented people in Northrn France to use it either : but the difference is that it didn't mixed-up with urban freedoms and judicial corpus, "popularizing" it in common affairs.
It took time, however, way beyond the rest of the County's lifespawn, mostly because it wasn't widely accepted : Peire Cardinal consider it to be nothing but cheating and pedantism, for instance, and you'd have to wait decades to find ONE legist as part of the Count's council.


Mea culpa, I meant Alphonse de Poitiers (that's what I get for posting at work).
See, before the creation of the University of Toulouse from one part, and the political support of the legists, Roman Law was often ill-considered and not institutionalized.It's really the Capetian presence that gave it a boost as the regular judicial basis of the region : before the XIVth century, the distinction between Pays de Droit Ecrit, and Pays de Droit Commun is mostly senseless.

May I advise you Henry Gilles on this? The work is a bit old, but tourough.
And may I advise André Gouron ? Equally old and thorough (which is, I think, a by-word for Law Historian). The Count used Lower Rhône area lawyers in his council and his chancery since the 12th c. They were perfectly versed in Roman Law (as this region, including Saint-Gilles, was one of the oldest romanist centers out of Italy. At Toulouse itself, the elites did call them in some complex cases and the most important person of the Toulousain consulate of the early 13th c. was the "endoctrinated" Master Bernard. What are you calling the "Count's Council" ?

I remain largely unconvinced there.
The small size of the Raimondins is debatable for anything befoe the XIIth century : Dom Vaisette simply let too many gaps and blanks in his works (remember that he left out three counts out of his comput). True, the lack of archives maintained or correctly put together didn't help him, but at least we don't know enough about the spawn of the Raimondine house to affirm it was reduced. Heck, several cadet branches did survived its extinction.

Which bring the other point : a good part of the support for Raimondines was both dynastical but as well political (see how Toulouse fought back Guilhèm's claims on Tolsan) and the men of Raimondins weren't really ready to follow a Barcelonese duke they would have fought mere years before, IMO : Barcelone and Toulouse seems like a good depiction of hereditary foes and their conflcit led to a local and fierce Hundred Years War (that and the conflicts earlier, arguably lasting nearly one century as well). I doubt such succession would be smooth, to say the least, even taking in account that a matrimonial policy directed at Barcelona doesn't make this much sense for Toulouse (you could argue, I concede it, that it could be part of a peace settlement contract)

Hum, Toulouse's actions in regard to the Aquitanians claims was not consistent. In fact, they moneyed their rallying to the Raymondins with a large autogovernment in the town, but only because they let Guilhem in in the first place.

Your claims of cadet branches is surprising. Are you talking about the so-called Toulouse-Lautrec ? Modern research has shown they were in fact Lautrec and not Toulouse. Or the bastards son of Raymond VI ? Nothing like the Barcelonins with their numerous cadet branches, even the direst of times (Jacme's childhood).
 
Top