Effects of Religious Tolerance in Medieval Europe

This might be a large ask, so I'll preface it with my own current (and not-so-thorough) understanding. From what I've gathered, the strength of the Catholic Papacy and its grip over European leaders in the 12th-13th centuries enabled the likes of the Reconquista to continue, the Albigensian Crusades, and the far-and-away excursions into the Levant. My interest lies in the ramifications of such a Papacy's absence or, at the very least, toned down influence. What effects would it have if, for instance, Raymond of Toulouse and Peter II of Aragon were allowed to continue their secular policies, whether through their protection of Cathars or the inclusion of Jews within the bureaucracy. Or if Sicily continued to be a bastion of secularism? Or if the expulsion of the Jews in England under Edward I and in Iberia never happened? All of this depends on if such a state of affairs is even possible, and I realise I opened up multiple cans of worms, so I suppose greater experts can poke holes here.
 
This might be a large ask, so I'll preface it with my own current (and not-so-thorough) understanding. From what I've gathered, the strength of the Catholic Papacy and its grip over European leaders in the 12th-13th centuries enabled the likes of the Reconquista to continue, the Albigensian Crusades, and the far-and-away excursions into the Levant. My interest lies in the ramifications of such a Papacy's absence or, at the very least, toned down influence. What effects would it have if, for instance, Raymond of Toulouse and Peter II of Aragon were allowed to continue their secular policies, whether through their protection of Cathars or the inclusion of Jews within the bureaucracy. Or if Sicily continued to be a bastion of secularism? Or if the expulsion of the Jews in England under Edward I and in Iberia never happened? All of this depends on if such a state of affairs is even possible, and I realise I opened up multiple cans of worms, so I suppose greater experts can poke holes here.

The ones I can answer, other posters can do better:

1) "the likes of the Reconquestia" happened because of the interests and values of the Iberian monarchs, not because of the Papacy.

2) Sicily as a bastion of secularism? Um?

3) That was done at least in large part (looking at Edward I, I suspect but don't know the same about Iberia) for financial reasons, not merely bigotry.
 
Last edited:
I'd say a Orthodox presence and the Patriarchate being a stronger religious group. Though I can't really remember, where the Khazars still around during the 1200's? The Sultanate of Rum might have started a encroach south.........
 
First, medieval tolerence in Middle-Ages is an anachronism.
Tolerence implies that you recognize the validity of one's beliefs even if they are opposed to yours.

What existed, in Christian or Islamic middle-ages was a form of cohabitation or at best what was called convivenca in occitan (living together).

Now, Catholic Church wasn't the behemoth of power you depict :

- Reconquista was before all things made by temporal power at their likes, and what Rome had to say on it had eventually little matter.

- Crusades are a more defendable cause, but really only for the 2 or 3 first ones. Except for the First and the Fifth, it was directed by kings of Christiendom that acted following their interests, and not along church prescription (explaining partially why they weren't sucessful)

That said, yes, between the XI and XIV, Rome is on a process of reinforcement that, being supported by high nobility itself opposed to greater than theirs, resumed in a mix of christian and feudal features (see below).

Finally, neither Raymond or Pierre of Aragon were overly concerned by Cathars well-being itself (actually, Raymond V tried to tone them down), and the presence of catharism within southern medieval elites was maintained for other factors.
Namely, that little nobles and patrician families had all one of their members at least or converted to catharism or leaning to; and therefore weren't really prone to epure themselves.
Raymond VI and VII eventually supported them more plainly because they were one sure support against french crusaders and french king, and when it wasn't possible anymore, turned their coats again.

2) Secularism in Middle-Ages is another anachronism.
Religious and temporal matters weren't fully separated, and while some temporal rulers could enjoy more freedom in this regard (notably when a religious upper classes didn't had historically a power base in their kingdom such as Sicily), they never get rid of it as their power itself was eventually based on both temporal and religious bases.

----

That said, for the OP
No feudalisation (at least as OTL form) is required, and that's an hell of a PoD.

Allow me to explain myself : the feudal fragmentation of society allowed the rise of a warrior class (aristocracy and knights).
With the strengthening of roman power from one part, and the appearance of religious and popular supported movement as the "Paix de Dieu", it became necessary to compromise christian and feudal ways of life.

The Crusades allowed the sanctification of violance as long it was considered just, aka defending Christiendom.
As heresy became in some parts (Languedoc is best known, but cathar heresy existed elsewhere) a "rooted" belief (even if it touched only a small minority, essentially in low nobility and urban elites) that went against a process of reinforcement of pontifical authority, they were finally considered as the "ennemy within" for diverse reason.

As said, mix of feudal and christian institutions : pledges, basis of legitimacy of power, and struggle against heresy was a mean of demonstrate his power (Raymond V against Plantagenet claims) and for papacy to have a support among nobility for his reinforcement.

The situation of european Jews followed a similar way (copying/pasting a previous post, where I summarized a doc)

It's a bit long to summarize, but basically : while anti-judaism existed in the Early MA, at the exception of Visigothic Spain [where it was diversly applied], you don't have a strong and continued movement and Jews kept the same status than during Roman Empire (basically, while they had to be maintained firmly in a Christian communauty, inside their own they are free to do).

If the persecution (forced conversion or plunder and/or death) of Imperial Jews during the crusades by disorganized bands (while it didn't existed with the "official" armies) were relativly isolated as well, it was truly percieved by Jews as a degradation of a stable situation that they knew so far depsite the more or less effective protection of Church and Empire.
While the XII century is still an "open" period, the situations began to change with the first mention of ritual murders, as en exemple. While fought by religious and secular authorities (that are still maintaining conversion of Jews as an objective), it was maintained in popular anti-judaism and later in the XIII more or less suported by the beggars orders, representative of a more harsh christian line.

1215 is percieved by the author as an important date, as the Jewish are clearly assimilated to heretics, and to the threat these were supposed to represent for society [let's recall that in MA, religion is the main social referent. Going against or turning away was seen as damaging the communauty as a whole], imposing them discriminatings features [not unlike what existed in Islamic Middle Ages or in earlier Byzantium. It would be interesting to see how the reuse of roman law happening at the same period didn't favoured that]. At this date began to disappear the previous housing that was more mixed (in town as in countryside) with co-existance of both communauties.
While in the XII, Christian scholars (that are divided on this : some support the expulsions and discriminations, other plaid for the former one) tried to read Jewish religious texts openly and "objectivly", these are now burnt. The situation didn't stop to degradate at this point.

In the same time, Jews status change and they are now considered as belonging to a secular authority rather than to their own. To quote the author, the feudal management of Jewish communauties was diverse : "They defend firmly their goods, but when they cease to be useful, you abandon them" at the same time that Jewish communaites began to loose the "political" and economical importance they had earlier.

You really need to
1) Prevent or at the very best soften feudal desintegration
2) Nerf pontifical importance
3) Limit reintroduction of justinian law and identification of Jews as foreign elements for Jews proper.

And you may have a more interesting situation for heretics and Jews, but it wouldn't be nowhere tolerence.
 
The ones I can answer, other posters can do better:

1) "the likes of the Reconquestia" happened because of the interests and values of the Iberian monarchs, not because of the Papacy.

2) Sicily as a bastion of secularism? Um?

3) That was done at least in large part (looking at Edward I, I suspect but don't know the same about Iberia) for financial reasons, not merely bigotry.
1. I was under the impression Rome helped fund/contributed to them? (not that I'm downplaying plain old self-interest on part of the Christian states, but surely the Church played somewhat of a role)
2. 'Bastion' is an exaggeration on my part, I'll admit, though I was basing my thoughts on past readings such as these. If I'm completely wrong in this regard, please enlighten me.
3. Hm, would there be any reason for him to forgo this decision? Otherwise, I suppose the financial aspect is more understandable.
I'd say a Orthodox presence and the Patriarchate being a stronger religious group. Though I can't really remember, where the Khazars still around during the 1200's? The Sultanate of Rum might have started a encroach south.........
Could you explain how greater Orthodoxy would help? The Khazars were pretty much nil by the turn of the 13th century - there are the Cumans, though.

Wow, thanks for this. Alright, so tolerance and secularism are definitely not the right terms. Do you (or anyone, really) happen to know of any books that better dive into this sorta topic? Obviously, Jews and Muslims are never going to perfectly live happily ever after under Christian rule, but surely there's a chance for them to... well, 'survive' sounds too depressing and 'flourish' sounds hyperbolic, so - 'get by' better? The reason I ask is because I'm somewhat surprised by things like the Statute of Kalisz, especially for the period in question. I'll concede to you on feudalism. Your post does lead me to wonder, however, to what extent Catharism could have grown (if at all) without the crackdown of OTL. If Raymond and Pierre were apathetic at best, would they still have allowed the heresy to grow if the French weren't so great a threat to join against? (I'm leaning towards no, but curiosity is besting me)
 
Last edited:
Do you (or anyone, really) happen to know of any books that better dive into this sorta topic?
Which languages can you read?

Obviously, Jews and Muslims are never going to perfectly live happily ever after under Christian rule,but surely there's a chance for them to... well, 'survive' sounds too depressing and 'flourish' sounds hyperbolic,

It seems that Jews and Muslims under Christian rule (as well Jews and Christian under Muslims rule) were still integrated into these respective societies, enough to lead their own lifes up to the XIII century (where their situation became really worse) depsite regular attacks and discrimination.

Flourishment isn't that much hyperbolic : Jews in Al-Andalus represented a wealthy minority, and you have european equivalents : Radhanites (even if their origin is somewhat hard to tell, there's little doubt that Rhone and Rhine where their main center in Europe); Jews of Languedoc (here's the seal of Kalonymos ben Todros, the "prince" of Narbonne's Jews), of Champagne, Rhineland (you'll notice that all of that is still around great tradeways).

It's this wealth that make them relativly protected, but victimized as well.

The reason I ask is because I'm somewhat surprised by things like the Statute of Kalisz, especially for the period in question.
It's interesting more than surprising : while you always had riots against Jews, they still beneficied before the XII of a more large range of actions than afterwards.

I'll concede to you on feudalism. Your post does lead me to wonder, however, to what extent Catharism could have grown (if at all) without the crackdown of OTL.
A few extent.
Catharism was essentially the beliefs of a nobility and urban elites as it allowed a religious practice compatible with the social changes (rites in occitan, acceptation of trade and loans, clerical poverty).

It's estimated to 10% in some cities, 15% at best and less than 2% (but that's more guesstimating) in countryside.

I would think, however, that they grew all the more they could :

- Gnostic religions, with "two levels" of initiation were far more appealling for an elitist and intellectual social classe than a pesant one (although it's know that cathars beliefs were widespread in some places, but that's essentially true during the last period, when cathars beliefs "degenerated").

- The refusal of blood and oath, whom feudal society was based on was really radical. Think of a good-looking and well reputed sect that would dismiss elections as diabolical.

- The rivalty of beggar orders, and new forms of religosity within or outside the church (Vaudois were great rivals of cathars)

If Raymond and Pierre were apathetic at best, would they still have allowed the heresy to grow if the French weren't so great a threat to join against? (I'm leaning towards no, but curiosity is besting me)

They had little choice on that matter. Counts of Toulouse demesnes was a freagging mosaic whom half of it did as it wanted (critically the Trencavel demesne).
Aragon was busy with the Reconquista, and without the Crusade they wouldn't have an opportunity to be involved more than they did.

Basically, Languedoc was a battlefield between
1) Aquitaine (then replaced by Plantagenet)
2) Barcelona (then replaced by Aragon)
3) Trencavel
4) Toulouse (in order to prevent being takenover to easily, they entered in an alliance with Capetians relativly early)

So, I don't think they could have enacted a real religious policy, even if they wanted to.

Still, as I said, Raymond V tried to do so, mostly for reinforce his alliance with Capetians and Church, but it did have mixed results.
 
1. I was under the impression Rome helped fund/contributed to them? (not that I'm downplaying plain old self-interest on part of the Christian states, but surely the Church played somewhat of a role)
2. 'Bastion' is an exaggeration on my part, I'll admit, though I was basing my thoughts on past readings such as these. If I'm completely wrong in this regard, please enlighten me.
3. Hm, would there be any reason for him to forgo this decision? Otherwise, I suppose the financial aspect is more understandable.
Could you explain how greater Orthodoxy would help? The Khazars were pretty much nil by the turn of the 13th century - there are the Cumans, though.

1) I wouldn't be surprised if there was funding - permitting a tax on church
property and such - but its absence isn't going to make everyone happily get along.
2) Sicily was complicated, but I don't think it was truly a-religious.

3) I am not sure. Repudiating one's debts and being able to get away with it is very tempting.
 
Top