could toulouse have won the albigensian crusade?

I'm just starting with alternate history, so this might not be the most plausible POD, but if Peter of Aragon had followed the plan at the battle of Muret, could the Cathars have won the Albigensian crusade? Would occitania be more independent? What theological implications would come of Cathar preachers freely speaking throughout Europe? Any guidance on how to go about turning my first good idea into a good timeline would be great.
 
I'm just starting with alternate history, so this might not be the most plausible POD, but if Peter of Aragon had followed the plan at the battle of Muret, could the Cathars have won the Albigensian crusade? Would occitania be more independent? What theological implications would come of Cathar preachers freely speaking throughout Europe? Any guidance on how to go about turning my first good idea into a good timeline would be great.

First let me say welcome to the board. Second, I can't realistically see a way for the Cathars to win. Sure they held out pretty well, and did manage to eject the Crusaders at one point, but against the political muscle of the Church? No chance. They were heretics op against a Church that hasn't yet been discredited like what happened before the reformation.
 
Welcome to the board!

I've wondered this myself, but as Constantine suggests, once the Crusade begins, the Cathars will most likely lose, eventually. The only way I can see to keep Catharism alive in the Languedoc is to keep the Catholic Church from crusading against them to begin with - which is a tall order, when one has heretics in their backyard.

Perhaps if the Church's attention were held elsewhere for long enough, and Catharism spread further and enjoyed a broader base of support (perhaps in the Crown of Aragon - IOTL the King of Aragon supported the Count of Toulouse, his brother-in-law) it could stand a chance.

Admittedly though, I know somewhat little of this subject. You're probably better off asking LSCatilina, who's sort of the local expert on matters in this region.
 
Hello and welcome on board. Don't worry about PoD's plausibility, you'll always find someone ready to crush it.

Speaking of which...

(Could you allow me to answer you in a different order than your questions'?)

Would occitania be more independent?
Medieval Occitania didn't existed : occitan feudal states were like puzzles pieces that didn't belonged to the same box.
Feudal desintegration of the X/XIth centuries was far more important in southern France than elsewhere, and that meant extreme division, weaker great lords, and eventually an almost perpetual war between them.

The XIIth century was a continual war between 4 entities :
Toulouse, Aquitaine (then Plantagenets), Barcelona (then Aragon), and Trencavel.

It's why Capetians intervened in Languedoc before the crusade : during the wars of Henry II against Toulouse, the help of the king was decisive.

So while medieval occitan states were independent de facto, up to a point, they were still under french suzerainity and while french kings actively tried to enforce this link, many occitan lords used it back for their own interests.

It's one of the reasons why the Crusade was as well a religious war, a feudal war from northern lords as a "civil war" : many occitan nobles joined up with Crusaders and at first even Raimond of Toulouse.

What theological implications would come of Cathar preachers freely speaking throughout Europe?
Few.

First, Catharism was an elite heresy (as almost all gnostic heresies).
It was quite limited demographically : a relativly strong urban minority (around 10%) and much weaker in countryside.
In cities, it was essentially touching what we could call a "middle class", aka small merchants, urban nobility and knighthood, but neither popular classes or elites (while, as elites were often intermarried with their lesser counterpart, a familial solidarity played fully).

During the siege of Carcassone, by exemple, the crusaders demanded the population to surrend the identified Cathars : they were five of them.
And if the city refused, it was less because they were Cathars or having a special bias towards them, but because they didn't wanted to surrender fellow citizens.

Then, Catharism was hardly an occitan heresy, but concerned all of Europe.. It was already a large matter.
What was different in Languedoc was that the political elite was either unwilling or unable (Raimond V did tried to get rid of Cathars, after all) to deal with.
Because of a cultural bias (one of the crusader's arguments was that Jews were allowed to live normally amongst Christians) but also because of aformentioned feudal desintegration that eventually left few power to greater nobles.


if Peter of Aragon had followed the plan at the battle of Muret, could the Cathars have won the Albigensian crusade?
Well, weirdly enough given the name, the crusade (as in political and military matters, not religious of course) ended to have little to do with Catharism.

What was at stake at Muret, was
1) Aragon's protectorate on Languedoc, with Peter II's army
2) Toulouse urban liberties (The revolution of 1189 effectivly made Toulouse its own city-state republic complete with a contado), with its urban militia
3) Raimond's power, with his ost.

These diverging interests explain why the Occitan-Aragonese army divisions.

Furthermore, Peter II was quite the model of reconquista's knight.
Admittedly, it made him successful in Spain, but that was the issue there : temporizing when the ennemy was ready to break wasn't worthy of him.

So, a good PoD would be to make the bishop that tried to make a truce right before the battle...not doing this : Peter's plan was originally to wait the crusaders make the first move.

Assuming that Peter stop pulling a Lionheart and act sensible, there's a possibility for Occitan-Aragonese army to crush them, and kill Simon de Monfort.
Then, Aragon clearly made his point : not only Carcassès and Razès were under his suzerainty, but the whole Languedoc.

The issue is that the land was still a damned puzzle.
Asserting his authority wouldn't be easy : towns acting as independent republics, lords not always recognizing their direct suzerains authority, and an enduring rivalry between Raimondins, Trencavel and Aragon.

Eventually, such an ensemble would have been really hard to be managed without external issues. And you'll have these.
Remember, Plantagenets and Capetians still have interests in the region, and are not going to abandon them sooner (especially Capetians whom star was clearly rising).

Peter's policy is going to be quite simple :

- Get rid of Cathars. They were the pretext of all the ****, and if they continued to be a thing, his victory would have been hard to exploit.
Inquisition didn't existed yet, but it may actually be created earlier ITTL with the support of Aragon.

- Get rid of troublesome nobles and make concessions. Rebellion, reconquest, re-war is likely to happen : Raimond (and others) pledged alliegance to Peter because Philipp II wouldn't have helped them.
With crusaders being history, and an actually closer king, they are gonna reconsider (remember that in medieval occitan tought, reconsidering a pledge was acceptable if situation changed. Not that was considered a good thing, especially by the loosing side).

Either Peter's manage to defeat him, or Raimond VI turn back to the traditional policy of Toulouse with an alliance with Capetians.

A likely outcome would be something like this (the dotted line points a possible exchange : Aragon could renounce to his holdings around Mende and Milhau, but could ask for Albigès)
Of course, that such situation would last is another thing.

Regional consequences would be important : for instance, likely no great ecclesiastical estates in Languedoc or a possible stronger consular movement.

I know it's not exactly what you were expecting, but I hope that is nevertheless helpful for your TL.
 
Last edited:
That's a lot to consider. Was there a movement that could have discredited the church at that time, enough for the populace to listen to heretical mystics?
 
Not really.
Heresies were often a self-acknowledged tentative to break of with mainsteam Church. That was more than about rites or good priestly behavior, but about theological and institutional differences.
Such were more coming from intellectual or "cosmopolitain" background than populars : not that it wouldn't eventually interpenetrate populars beliefs, but less institutionally than culturally.

Generally, more popular and widespread pious movements weren't radically opposed to the Church and often ended integrated : Minor Friars, Dominicans, even Waldensians that weren't that much distinct at first.

See, breaking off with the Church was a huge step, in a time where religious identity was one of the main one. It asks for the will of a radical change of identity and generally isn't isolated.
 
If the papal legate didn't die, then pope innocent would have had a harder time drumming up support for his crusade; could that prevent the war all together?
 
If the papal legate didn't die, then pope innocent would have had a harder time drumming up support for his crusade; could that prevent the war all together?

Well, it could indeed at least delay the crusade. It was a clear casus belli, even if Raimond wasn't -totally- responsible of that.

Furthermore, if you manage to delay it up to Philip II's victories over Plantagenets and Honestaufen, francilian nobility may be too busy fighting in North to really think intervening in South, or at last in the same number.
It could as well obtained by making Philip II's decision to forbid french lords to join the crusade being maintained.

You have a drawback that said : if occitan lords doesn't decide to comply to pontifical demands quickly (remember that at this point, Raimond VI is still excommunicated) and decides to act against Catharism, it would be a full and victorious royal army that would go South, and Occitan victories over crusaders equivalent may as well not appear.
Then, it would be hard to define precisely the outcome, but probably something along OTL lines : confiscation of heretic or excommunicated lords as Trencavel at crown's benefit, reinforcement of capetian authority, etc.

Of course, following an harsh anti-Cathar policy would mean a fracturation of Raimond's forces, as occitan lords, cities and knights weren't too keen about pulling a McCarthy among their elites.

That said, first part of the military crusade may fail as much spectacularly than OTL and quicker : have Raimond VI comply, siege of Beziers being unsuccessful and part of the army quitting after the mandatory 40 days and Raimond-Roger complying then.
It would mean an harsh policy against Cathar and their own nobility, and probably with crusader being granted their holdings, but it could work.
It would still implies civil disorder and wars, repression of Catharism and probably Judaism as well, great loss of authority of counts.
 
The latter. Shortly said, for Occitan great lords keeping their powers, Cathars have to be dealt with, and as quickly as possible.
Of course that would weaken their power from outside (pontifical demands) and inside (occitan nobility not pleased, if not pissed).
 
Raymond was in exile in England after the crusade and he was married to Joan Plantagenet at one point, in addition to John Lackland being excommunicated. This makes me think that John might take some Cathars in if they were more successful; maybe not at first, but once it was Ray the Seventh in the line of fire he might do it for his nephew.
 
in addition to John Lackland being excommunicated. This makes me think that John might take some Cathars in if they were more successful; maybe not at first, but once it was Ray the Seventh in the line of fire he might do it for his nephew.

Some Cathars seems to have fled OTL to England. But that John II would have personally harboured that would be perillous at best : being already excommunicated didn't exactly gave a protection (Raimond did knew about that).

Furthermore regarding the loving embrace he had of his nephews IOTL, I'm not sure it would be enough for him to at least act concerned.

I point it again, Catharism is essentially a religion tied with either urban "middle-classes" and lower nobility, giving them an ideological stance against higher nobility.

Does John Lackland really needed even more division and reason for people to kick him down?

EDIT : Honestly, I simply don't see Cathars managing to stay a thing. They were a quite stratified (socially speaking) heresy and while present more or less elsewhere in western Europe, never managed to live on except in peripherical and quite divided aeras, meaning weaker ones; and were under a huge concurrence with not only new practices under Catholic patronage (as Franciscans and Dominicans, quite popular) but also other heresies or heterodoxial beliefs (as Vaudois, that were really anti-Cathars).
More sucessful would have meant, at short term, being crushed harder.
 
Last edited:
So, barring "guns of the Languedoc", the question becomes how to let them change the course of history before they die out, rather than how to keep them alive?
 
Changing history more than IOTL (I mean provoking a crusade in Christian lands is already something quite huge itself)?

I could possibly see a relaitivly more important Cathar presence in a Lombardy that managed to escape Imperial grasp, and eventually knowing a similar fate, but apart from that...

The main problems is that, as all gnostic heresy, we're talking about a really heterogenous group. The cathar "council" of Saint-Félix would show quite well that they were opposing dogmas, that while not going to open rivality (at least not in Languedoc. You had basically a schism in Italy), underlined the absence of inner cohesion of Catharism.
But giving the intellectual and relativly elitist (at least in its two-level religion), it would be really hard to give Catharism an actual organisation and unicity.

If the point is to make Languedoc living on independently, it depends what you need.
A quite interesting, but totally counter-intuitive, PoD would be Simon de Montfort living on and winning the war.
Think about it : one, relativly unified, principality instead of two puzzles.
 

norse

Banned
my guess is even if they won some of the original battles in otl the eventually the contant crusading would wear them down into nothing

not a huge expert on this particular area but the only thing that comes to mind is a resurgant cordoba and an alliance against the catholics
 
Top