What happens to "Occitania" if the crusades fail?

[Elfwine]

Just as it says. The area isn't secured by the Northern French, and people like Count Raymond remain in/regain power.

It seems there was only a finite level of enthusiasm for doing it - sure if it was easy and profitable, people leaped on it, but it wasn't worth so much as to generate endless effort without those rewards coming.

It seems that this would weaken the Capets compared to OTL, although more as a matter of not growing in an area they were lucky enough to profit from than being worse off than they started from.

But what happens to the region itself? From my (limited) reading, it was hardly a united place in any sense - just basically a not-France area of various lords with (relatively) little power.

 

[LSCatilina]

Just as it says. The area isn't secured by the Northern French, and people like Count Raymond remain in/regain power.

The problem is that the Raimond didn't were in power. Their vassals were. Even at Tolosa itself, the urban nobles and upper bourgeoisie were so strong that they talked about the "Tolosan Republic".

In fact, the counts of Tolosa somewhat GAINED power after the crusade : they took back lands that were ruled by Trencavel (north of Albi viscounty), they had a familial and institutional tie with the royal family and much of their troublesome vassals were out of the game, with recognized and acknowledged borders.

It seems that this would weaken the Capets compared to OTL, although more as a matter of not growing in an area they were lucky enough to profit from than being worse off than they started from.

The problem is that the Capetians were totally recognized as king by the Occitan lords. Raimon called for Peire d'Aragon only because the french king didn't moved a finger to help him.

And, if the Capets didn't acted too much in the south of their kingdom, it was mainly because they were busy with the Plantagenet Normandy and Anjou. If the things continues likes OTL regarding Plantagenet desmene, you can be sure that an english Aquitaine would seriously make the Capet interest about strenghtening their power in the south.

But what happens to the region itself? From my (limited) reading, it was hardly a united place in any sense - just basically a not-France area of various lords with (relatively) little power.

Depends of what you call little powers : the cities began to have some...But at the difference of what happened in France, it was mainly an alliance of urban nobility and upper bourgeoisie.
The others one, if they recognized the count, the viscount or the duke (depending of the situation), acknowledged mainly their OWN power.

But, well, with no crusade...I think the border (both feudal and linguistic) between Catalonia and Occitania would be put more north, to include Razès, Carcassonès and maybe Montpelhièr.
The county of Tolosa would likely be friendly towards Capet, at least until the french king presses the tolosan claims in Agenès, and even after in order to secure their positions against english Aquitaine.
The Trencavel desmene...It's more blur. I would say it would eventually collapse with a treaty between Aragon and France that would decide of the border : the southern part (Carcassonès, Razès, Montpelherès) would be or integrated into Catalonia, or treated as a new part of confederation (unlikely), and Tolosan claims for the northen par (Albigès, Besierès) could be pressed by Capetians.

If it's made like this, i would say that castles as Castelnau d'Arri, Caparet or fortified towns like Carcassona would known a certain development both economically and strategic.

For the Provence...Well...If the Raimond manage to hold the March of Provence against the cities power (that was more important in this side of Rose/Rhone), i doubt you'll have many changes from OTL.

EDIT : Oops...I didn't read well. I tought it was if the crusade didn't happen.
So..If the crusade failed? But, err...It actually failed OTL, except regarding the situation of Trencavel domain, and the border between Aragon and France.

 

[Elfwine]

The problem is that the Raimond didn't were in power. Their vassals were. Even at Tolosa itself, the urban nobles and upper bourgeoisie were so strong that they talked about the "Tolosan Republic".

In fact, the counts of Tolosa somewhat GAINED power after the crusade : they took back lands that were ruled by Trencavel (north of Albi viscounty), they had a familial and institutional tie with the royal family and much of their troublesome vassals were out of the game, with recognized and acknowledged borders.

But the only counts who benefited from this were the ones from elsewhere, not Raymond. The point I'm trying to ask on is not so much what was good for them as keeping the people who were in power, in power.

The problem is that the Capetians were totally recognized as king by the Occitan lords. Raimon called for Peire d'Aragon only because the french king didn't moved a finger to help him.

And, if the Capets didn't acted too much in the south of their kingdom, it was mainly because they were busy with the Plantagenet Normandy and Anjou. If the things continues likes OTL regarding Plantagenet desmene, you can be sure that an english Aquitaine would seriously make the Capet interest about strenghtening their power in the south.

That's interesting to think about. So if the King is busy elsewhere - and not with Aquitaine - Occitania is not as relevant to him?

Depends of what you call little powers : the cities began to have some...But at the difference of what happened in France, it was mainly an alliance of urban nobility and upper bourgeoisie.
The others one, if they recognized the count, the viscount or the duke (depending of the situation), acknowledged mainly their OWN power.

But, well, with no crusade...I think the border (both feudal and linguistic) between Catalonia and Occitania would be put more north, to include Razès, Carcassonès and maybe Montpelhièr.
The county of Tolosa would likely be friendly towards Capet, at least until the french king presses the tolosan claims in Agenès, and even after in order to secure their positions against english Aquitaine.
The Trencavel desmene...It's more blur. I would say it would eventually collapse with a treaty between Aragon and France that would decide of the border : the southern part (Carcassonès, Razès, Montpelherès) would be or integrated into Catalonia, or treated as a new part of confederation (unlikely), and Tolosan claims for the northen par (Albigès, Besierès) could be pressed by Capetians.

If it's made like this, i would say that castles as Castelnau d'Arri, Caparet or fortified towns like Carcassona would known a certain development both economically and strategic.

For the Provence...Well...If the Raimond manage to hold the March of Provence against the cities power (that was more important in this side of Rose/Rhone), i doubt you'll have many changes from OTL.

EDIT : Oops...I didn't read well. I tought it was if the crusade didn't happen.
So..If the crusade failed? But, err...It actually failed OTL, except regarding the situation of Trencavel domain, and the border between Aragon and France.

I would not describe something that results in the County of Toulouse (capital C as I mean the whole area that Alfonso got, not just the parts that Raymond before this whole mess was actually able to exercise control over, so including the Trencavel lands and all) becoming part of the royal demense as a failure.

So what happens if the local lords and towns remain free, in the sense Raymond (and others, but he's the one whose name I remember) is nominally the French king vassal but in practice the king isn't able to do much with it?

The religious aspects - that is, doing something about the Cathars - are secondary to the change to the region politically (so far as what I'm wondering what would happen if the crusade failed).

A France where this area remains more Northern Spain than Southern France is interesting to contemplate.

 

[LSCatilina]

But the only counts who benefited from this were the ones from elsewhere, not Raymond. The point I'm trying to ask on is not so much what was good for them as keeping the people who were in power, in power.

No. The ones that benefitted from crusade were Occitan lords mainly. Both the ones that joined the crusade since the beggining, the ones that opposed it and the ones that changed side (as the Raimonds). From the point of view of the great nobles, the outcome was quite good, as it make them benefitted from things they didn't have before.

If you want to have the dust of feudality still important, it wouldn't be for long anyway : in the south like in the north (admittedly later), the unificationg dynamic was still existing (just see the Trencavel desmene).

That's interesting to think about. So if the King is busy elsewhere - and not with Aquitaine - Occitania is not as relevant to him?

Well, it's still relevant, but less than more close threats such as Normandy, Flanders, Anjou or Germany, yes.

I would not describe something that results in the County of Toulouse (capital C as I mean the whole area that Alfonso got, not just the parts that Raymond before this whole mess was actually able to exercise control over, so including the Trencavel lands and all) becoming part of the royal demense as a failure.

Well, you can call it as you want, but historically it was a failure. No one of the nobles present during the crusade benefitted from it, apart the occitan lords. The De Monforts were so kicked out that they had to deal with John II to have power back.

And for the unification of Lengadoc, you're mixing two different events that are linked only by chronology.
1)After the crusade, and the total failure of it (Catharism still present, no french noble in charge), the Count of Tolosa and everyone except Trencavel were still here and quite powerful. In fact, having the Trencavel and the Aragon out Occitania made the occitan nobles with less threat or rivals, as the french king was more interested about Lower Lengadoc for his mediterranean interests rather than making it an outpost for conquering Occitan lands.
Olivièr de Tèrme would be a good exemple of this occitan nobility under capetians.

In fact, having Alphonse de Poitiers as count of Tolosa wasn't at all a pre-annexation. You have the same diplomatic policy to put friendly lords at the head of powerful lands (as it happened TWICE for Burgundy). So except if you say me the Capet were fournished with a fertility-radar making themselves able to make matrimonial alliance that end in annexion like in a CK game...

So what happens if the local lords and towns remain free, in the sense Raymond (and others, but he's the one whose name I remember) is nominally the French king vassal but in practice the king isn't able to do much with it?

Yes and no. "Nominal" is a really vague definition and don't match the importance the king could have. The Capet could interven in southern business (they did that before), but the outcome wouldn't benefit directly for them, more to their friends or the people they have interest to make growth.

But it's true that if you don't have a capetian Lengadoc...the power of the king would be seriously reduced by comparison of OTL (but again, if things goes as OTL except for Occitania, the Capetian would be forced to be REALLY interested about the south of their kingdom).

Don't forget that the king is able to give charts to towns, to influence vassals, and that it could be interesting for the "patriciate" (alliance of urban nobility and upper bourgeoisie).

 

[Elfwine]

No. The ones that benefitted from crusade were Occitan lords mainly. Both the ones that joined the crusade since the beggining, the ones that opposed it and the ones that changed side (as the Raimonds). From the point of view of the great nobles, the outcome was quite good, as it make them benefitted from things they didn't have before.

If you want to have the dust of feudality still important, it wouldn't be for long anyway : in the south like in the north (admittedly later), the unificationg dynamic was still existing (just see the Trencavel desmene).

(After Louis's last campaign) "Capetian occupation of the county of Toulouse was thus a fact." (from The Capetian Kings of France by Robert Fawtier) And the result translates into the area not being in the hands of the local lords but in the hands (ultimately) of the Capets.

This is failure?

Well, it's still relevant, but less than more close threats such as Normandy, Flanders, Anjou or Germany, yes.

Makes sense.

Well, you can call it as you want, but historically it was a failure. No one of the nobles present during the crusade benefitted from it, apart the occitan lords. The De Monforts were so kicked out that they had to deal with John II to have power back.

What happened to the de Montforts doesn't make up for the area going via Alphonse to the crown, though.

And for the unification of Lengadoc, you're mixing two different events that are linked only by chronology.
1)After the crusade, and the total failure of it (Catharism still present, no french noble in charge), the Count of Tolosa and everyone except Trencavel were still here and quite powerful. In fact, having the Trencavel and the Aragon out Occitania made the occitan nobles with less threat or rivals, as the french king was more interested about Lower Lengadoc for his mediterranean interests rather than making it an outpost for conquering Occitan lands.

What are you defining as "the crusade" here? Because I think of Louis VIII's actions as part of it, not just de Montfort.

In fact, having Alphonse de Poitiers as count of Tolosa wasn't at all a pre-annexation. You have the same diplomatic policy to put friendly lords at the head of powerful lands (as it happened TWICE for Burgundy). So except if you say me the Capet were fournished with a fertility-radar making themselves able to make matrimonial alliance that end in annexion like in a CK game...

But it did work out that way, which is the point.

Yes and no. "Nominal" is a really vague definition and don't match the importance the king could have. The Capet could interven in southern business (they did that before), but the outcome wouldn't benefit directly for them, more to their friends or the people they have interest to make growth.

But it's true that if you don't have a capetian Lengadoc...the power of the king would be seriously reduced by comparison of OTL (but again, if things goes as OTL except for Occitania, the Capetian would be forced to be REALLY interested about the south of their kingdom)

Nominal in the sense of real on paper, limited in practice - the Capetian monarchy is not well positioned to interfere at this point (getting there, certainly, but still short of full control).

 

[LSCatilina]

(After Louis's last campaign) "Capetian occupation of the county of Toulouse was thus a fact." And the result translates into the area not being in the hands of the local lords but in the hands (ultimately) of the Capets.

This is failure?

Yeah, because it's two different events.
Just imagine that the Crusaders of the First Crusade miserably fail before Antioch, but the Byzantines use that to conquer the Holy Land. The Crusader would have failed, the Byzantine Empire no.

It's the same here : the Capetians didn't intervene in the crusade (except Louis VIII, in a munchkin contest with the ghost of Richard Lionheart) and it was really really limited and failed when the men of Louis VIII left him because they didn't want him to annex the County of Tolosa.

So yeah, i think that when a crusade involve the king of France, with all the other nobles lefting the crusade, and when EVEN the Capetian die by shitting his intestine without having suceeded to annex what he wanted, it's a failure.

The Lower Lengadoc was actually annexed only when the Capetian agreed to abandon their claim in Occitania except the half of Trencavel domain.

It's why everyone say the Crusade was a failure : no crusader managed to reach the objective of the expedition as no french lord gained territory except Louis IX that didn't participated to the crusade, and not only the Catharism wasn't crushed...But it was even more prosperous than ever!

For the union of High Languedoc...Again, it wasn't planned : what's was envisioned was to make the County of Tolosa and its desmene a friendly one towards Capetian policy, as the Duchy of Burgundy was under a capetian dynasty.
Nobody could have guessed that Alphonse wouldn't have a child and would die letting his desmene to the french throne. It was just the usual dynastic policy, as the one that put Charles of Anjou in south Italy by exemple.

What happened to the de Montforts doesn't make up for the area going via Alphonse to the crown, though.

Again not planned. And in fact, the worse thing that could have happen for the Capetian, would have been a total victory of the Monfort.
Simon would have been able to create a principality that would have united Trencavel and Tolsan domain without the little troublesome nobility.

To not have to deal with a feudal state that would have probably made a "Flanders of the South" (Oooh, that's a good title, nobody intend to make a TL with that?) from Agen to Baucaire, independent dynastically and "politicaly" from the Capet, the french king preferred not to intervene in the crusade.

What are you defining as "the crusade" here? Because I think of Louis VIII's actions as part of it, not just de Montfort.

As i said, the part with the king litteraly shitting his death is inclued. The part where half of his men left his army, were he wasn't able to press his own claims and where the dude that stand with him is suspected to have poisoned him to avoid an annexation of the county.

But it did work out that way, which is the point.

Which point? It's an unexpected consequence of the crusade, but it's not belonging to the Crusade. You could say as well that the WW1 and the WW2 are the same war, because one is the unexpected consequence of the other.

You would have a point if when the crusade was finished, the Raimond would have been forced to this : "when you die, we annex your county". That would have been directly issued from the Crusade.

But what happened was "Could you marry your daughter to my brother? If you don't have a son, she would inherit was it's usual. Well, i suppose that if the couple don't have a child, i'll inherit but..the odds are against that".

So, except if we discover that Louis XI was a psychic or had a sperm-deleter gun hidden in his scepter, i don't see how this chain : Raimond don't have a son, Alphonse don't have a son, would have been guessed by everyone.

Nominal in the sense of real on paper, limited in practice - the Capetian monarchy is not well positioned to interfere at this point (getting there, certainly, but still short of full control).

Sure. But it certain the capetian royalty (monarchy is more used for modern ages) would be interested about it, even without crusades : they had a mediterranean policy, there was the English Aquitaine.

If I dared to guesstimate, we could have a delay of 100 years before the Capetian could impose his power by unions, annexation (unlikely i would say, considering they had the Plantagenet as common foe) or lowering of feudal power.

 

[Elfwine]

Yeah, because it's two different events.
Just imagine that the Crusaders of the First Crusade miserably fail before Antioch, but the Byzantines use that to conquer the Holy Land. The Crusader would have failed, the Byzantine Empire no.

It's the same here : the Capetians didn't intervene in the crusade (except Louis VIII, in a munchkin contest with the ghost of Richard Lionheart) and it was really really limited and failed when the men of Louis VIII left him because they didn't want him to annex the County of Tolosa.

So yeah, i think that when a crusade involve the king of France, with all the other nobles lefting the crusade, and when EVEN the Capetian die by shitting his intestine without having suceeded to annex what he wanted, it's a failure.

The Lower Lengadoc was actually annexed only when the Capetian agreed to abandon their claim in Occitania except the half of Trencavel domain.

It's why everyone say the Crusade was a failure : no crusader managed to reach the objective of the expedition as no french lord gained territory except Louis IX that didn't participated to the crusade, and not only the Catharism wasn't crushed...But it was even more prosperous than ever!
[/quote]

On Louis (VIII): "In January 1226, a papal legate excommunicated Count Raymond VII, although he had made his submission and sought absolution at Bourges in the preceding year. The Church confirmed the possession of Raymond's lands to the king, with the right to hold them and to bequeath them to his successors. Amaury de Montfort, for his part, surrendered all title to his fathers conquests, and his uncle, Gui de Montfort, confirmed the cession. King Louis took the cross. He received from teh Chruch the normal crusader's indulgences and priviliges for himself and his kingdom...and as early as March 1226 submissions began to come in. They increased with the siege of Avignon and its fall on 9 September, despite the defection of some of the great vassals, who left the army on the completion of their normal forty days' service. The crusade became a mere military promenade, and the king was able to press on with the organization of royal government in the conquered lands. He retained the administrative system set up by Simon de Montfort, and established a firm alliance with the local clergy. He died on his homeward journey north, at Montpensier, on 8 November 1226."

The Capetian Kings of France by Robert Fawtier (translated by Lionel Butler and R J Adam).

For the union of High Languedoc...Again, it wasn't planned : what's was envisioned was to make the County of Tolosa and its desmene a friendly one towards Capetian policy, as the Duchy of Burgundy was under a capetian dynasty.
Nobody could have guessed that Alphonse wouldn't have a child and would die letting his desmene to the french throne. It was just the usual dynastic policy, as the one that put Charles of Anjou in south Italy by exemple.

That's still success by the "let's establish French (as distinct from Occitan) rule" faction - and failure by the Occitans to keep them out. And even more so, success by the monarchy (the kings) - even if it worked as expected, it was still strengthening the monarchy and the dynasty at the expense of the previous nobles.

Again not planned. And in fact, the worse thing that could have happen for the Capetian, would have been a total victory of the Monfort.
Simon would have been able to create a principality that would have united Trencavel and Tolsan domain without the little troublesome nobility.

To not have to deal with a feudal state that would have probably made a "Flanders of the South" (Oooh, that's a good title, nobody intend to make a TL with that?) from Agen to Baucaire, independent dynastically and "politicaly" from the Capet, the french king preferred not to intervene in the crusade.

Someone should. And while Philip preferred not to, Louis seems to have been much more interested.

As i said, the part with the king litteraly shitting his death is inclued. The part where half of his men left his army, were he wasn't able to press his own claims and where the dude that stand with him is suspected to have poisoned him to avoid an annexation of the county.

Where he is getting people submitting to him? That doesn't count?

Which point? It's an unexpected consequence of the crusade, but it's not belonging to the Crusade. You could say as well that the WW1 and the WW2 are the same war, because one is the unexpected consequence of the other.

You would have a point if when the crusade was finished, the Raimond would have been forced to this : "when you die, we annex your county". That would have been directly issued from the Crusade.

But what happened was "Could you marry your daughter to my brother? If you don't have a son, she would inherit was it's usual. Well, i suppose that if the couple don't have a child, i'll inherit but..the odds are against that".

So, except if we discover that Louis XI was a psychic or had a sperm-deleter gun hidden in his scepter, i don't see how this chain : Raimond don't have a son, Alphonse don't have a son, would have been guessed by everyone.

Whether or not it would be guessed isn't the point, the point is that it did work out that way. Louis accomplished what he intended (secure Capet authority, both as in the monarchy and as in the family) - and more (the unexpected inheritance) - here.

If Raymond had a son, and that son inherited all the lands that had been up for question in this whole mess, and Louis and his heirs got nothing for their pains, I would call that a failure.

Sure. But it certain the capetian royalty (monarchy is more used for modern ages) would be interested about it, even without crusades : they had a mediterranean policy, there was the English Aquitaine.

If I dared to guesstimate, we could have a delay of 100 years before the Capetian could impose his power by unions, annexation (unlikely i would say, considering they had the Plantagenet as common foe) or lowering of feudal power.

That makes sense to me.

 

[LSCatilina]

On Louis (VIII): "In January 1226, a papal legate excommunicated Count Raymond VII, although he had made his submission and sought absolution at Bourges in the preceding year. The Church confirmed the possession of Raymond's lands to the king, with the right to hold them and to bequeath them to his successors. Amaury de Montfort, for his part, surrendered all title to his fathers conquests, and his uncle, Gui de Montfort, confirmed the cession.

Err...No. It's the reverse situation. FIRST Amaury gives the titles to the king, THEN the curch validate it. Of course, Amaury gives titles void of sense as he lost almost everything.

King Louis took the cross. He received from teh Chruch the normal crusader's indulgences and priviliges for himself and his kingdom...and as early as March 1226 submissions began to come in. They increased with the siege of Avignon and its fall on 9 September, despite the defection of some of the great vassals, who left the army on the completion of their normal forty days' service.

What about the men that stand in service, but tried to slow the king, to avoid him annexing lands, as Tibault de Champagne?

The crusade became a mere military promenade, and the king was able to press on with the organization of royal government in the conquered lands. He retained the administrative system set up by Simon de Montfort, and established a firm alliance with the local clergy. He died on his homeward journey north, at Montpensier, on 8 November 1226.

Military promenade? Well, somwhat it's true. But it's interrupted by the siege of Avinhon that wasn't particularly short and pleasant as the king had trouble to be obeyed of his own men and as he was sickened here.
The city standing 3 months against the king, critically a city serving as the key to enter in Lengadoc, could be considered as a military promenade itself. In fact, it allowed to delaying his expedition long enough to have a pale mirror of what his army was while the men that were still within weren't particularly agreeing with the goals of the king.

But yes, you have surrender of cities (that probably didin't wanted to loose the autonomy they had, as Avinhon did). But the military power of these cities are not really the main problem for Louis, as the campaigns of Simon showed.
Even that, tough, was void of meaning as Louis couldn't attack in the facts : not army big enough, reluctant vassals...He just left the idea to attack this year, and died soon after.

So, what Louis wanted to do : annex the Lengadoc, and especially the county of Tolosa? Fail.

The Capetian Kings of France by Robert Fawtier (translated by Lionel Butler and R J Adam).

Well, since 1942, our vision of the crusade evolved a bit. The book is somewhat obsolete today (even if many of the work of Fawtier is still interesting, critically in his critics of sources) and when it was published in 1942, its goal was to say "hey, France is maybe defeated, but it happened in the past and we're still there". I'm not sure about using it.

Could I suggest you "France in the Middles-Ages 987-1460" of Georges Duby? It's translated in english, and i suppose that you wont have many troubles to find it.

"As the ones his father and his grand father led in Maconnais, the expedition in the south was easy. Nobles of the Narbonensis pledged their alliegance while the king marched in the imperial lands with his sword of justice raised.
But an unexpected obstacle prevented him to continue.

Beyond the river, the urban communauties grew. Bartering their support to the count of Tolosa they gained new powers. Their italian-like policy made them little hard to submit states.

[Details about the siege, to resume, they tought it would be easy to just enter in the city. They were wrong. Louis was persuaded that it was because of the heresy (that of course didn't made any communauty worth of mention here) and besieged it. Hard sun, dysentery-bearing swamps. And the fact the king prevented his men to plunder the city, forbidding them to get wealth this way, just made his army unwilling to continue : what was the point if only the king would benefit of it?]

"If we trust Guillaume of Puylaurens, the previous king always tought that his fragile son would die in the sunny lands"
[It's proposed as an explanation of why Philippe didn't want his son to be part of the souther expedition of 1219, that failed too]

The expedition of Louis didn't give to the crown the lands he wanted. What gave Louis IX a part of these said lands was the political diplomacy : the Count took back his desmene (at the exception of Mediterranean lands, that were in the hands of Trencavel before the crusade anyway). In fact, the lands Raimond lost that was in his possession was the south of Albi viscounty that he took after Raimond Roger and Simon deaths. His core land was totally recognized as his own, as long he fought the heresy.

That's still success by the "let's establish French (as distinct from Occitan) rule" faction - and failure by the Occitans to keep them out. And even more so, success by the monarchy (the kings) - even if it worked as expected, it was still strengthening the monarchy and the dynasty at the expense of the previous nobles.

Again, i wait you show me where the occitan lords were replaced by french ones.
Because, you know, it wasn't. The policy of Louis IX, to pardon massivly and to integrate the occitan nobility as Oliviers de termes at the place of french ones was particularly interesting for this and you could see the results during Philippe le Bel reign by exemple.

In fact, the only worth of mention exemple was the replacement of Trencavel by the king of France. And he acted like an occitan lords as long it regarded his southern desmene. Not talking that ALphonse de Poitiers took back in co-suzerainty (another occitan policy) some lands in Provence that his father-in-law lost.

Someone should. And while Philip preferred not to, Louis seems to have been much more interested.

Because he was nuts? And that his expeditions, except the last ones

Where he is getting people submitting to him? That doesn't count?

Not really in the way you would want. Have you an idea on how much cities submitted during the crusade? Hell, all of them probably submitted themselves at least once or twice. But when the expedition goes in another place, you had "well, in fact we don't see the interest of submitting anymore".

Whether or not it would be guessed isn't the point, the point is that it did work out that way. Louis accomplished what he intended (secure Capet authority, both as in the monarchy and as in the family) - and more (the unexpected inheritance) - here.

Louis didn't accomplished ANYTHING. He died before Isabeau had the idea to marry Alphonse to Joanna of Tolosa. Result of his expedition : nuts.

So, yeah, maybe matrimonial policy isn't as galmour that sucessful military expedition by a chevalresque king, but it worked when the king failed. Simple as that.

If Raymond had a son, and that son inherited all the lands that had been up for question in this whole mess, and Louis and his heirs got nothing for their pains, I would call that a failure.

Again, you're mixing two events. I don't know how to say you : the crusade was officialy finished in 1226 during the treaty of Meaux.
Outcome : the french king gained a domain that was 1/3 of what he claimed, the count of Tolosa remained independent and strong, the occitan cities gained more liberties than ever, and some nobles (as Provença, Fois, Comminges) became more independent. With church gained or reinforcing lands in the south.

So, at the treaty of Meaux, what about the objectives?
1)Catharism, still there and prosperous, thanks to ask.
2)Overthrowing occitan lords, and replacing them with french ones. With the exception of Louis IX becoming count of Carcassona and Nimes and relying on occitan nobility to secure it, it was a big fail.

You're free to say "oh but the crusade lasted as long the count of Tolosa wasn't died" or anything else as it's your right to propose such an interpretation.

But for everyone else, crusade ended in 1229. What happen next his consequences and...i don't want to be rude just i don't have the right words here...history is about the facts and their consequences, and the consequences of the consequences. The acquisition of Upper Languedoc is not directly issued from Crusade, as the Western Schism wasn't. It's just consequences, unexpected and being sort of surprising.

To say it in AH-pigdin : "WI - Alphonse de Poitiers don't have a son"

"What if he died without an heir? The french king would have inherited his desmenes, securing his positions in the south against Plantagenets.

And what about putting the Pope in Avignon instead of Rome? It could have led later to a schism between Avignon and Rome papacy. it's a bit unlikely but it would be fun"

Answer "ASB!", "Unlikely"...etc.

 

[Yorel]

Louis didn't accomplished ANYTHING. He died before Isabeau had the idea to marry Alphonse to Joanna of Tolosa

Don't you mean Blanche of Castille? Louis VIII's wife and later widow? From what I remember, she was the one who signed the treaty with Raymond VII that resulted in Joan of Toulouse marrying Alphonse of Poitiers, younger brother to Saint Louis IX of France. You might mean someone else, but I do not know any Isabeau involved in that event.

Although, I wouldn't be so keen on saying that annexation of Languedoc wasn't an objective of the French crown. Sure, this would have been prevented if Raymond VII of Alphonse of Poitiers had left an heir behind, but Languedoc was annexed by Philippe III while he was arguably not the heir. Technically, Toulouse should have gone to a cadet line of the Raimonides born from one of Raymond VI's brother, the Toulouse-Lautrec (who gave us the famous XIXth century French painter Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec), as Alphonse of Poitiers held the county jure uxoris. Philippe III could just have left the county to the Toulouse-Lautrec line but he didn't and instead worked his way into getting the country.
Plus, annexing French fiefs was one of the objectives of the Capetians because it was a win-win situation: it got rid of irratating great nobles and it was a way of unifying their Kingdom. It's a process that continued until the Kingdom of France and Royal Dosmaine became one with the accession of Henri IV in 1589 OTL. Every Capetian after Philip II Augustus worked towards that goal (though Louis VIII's actions have to be nuanced as he splitted the Royal Dosmaine into several apanages).

Of course, the fact that Alphonse wasn't heir to the French crown but only second-in-line is there. However, it technically had the possibility of making the County "Capetian". That's not an annexation, but it would have made a friendly vassal in Southern France.

 

[LSCatilina]

Don't you mean Blanche of Castille? Louis VIII's wife and later widow? From what I remember, she was the one who signed the treaty with Raymond VII that resulted in Joan of Toulouse marrying Alphonse of Poitiers, younger brother to Saint Louis IX of France. You might mean someone else, but I do not know any Isabeau involved in that event.

Oops, yes typo. I was thinking to her.

Although, I wouldn't be so keen on saying that annexation of Languedoc wasn't an objective of the French crown. Sure, this would have been prevented if Raymond VII of Alphonse of Poitiers had left an heir behind, but Languedoc was annexed by Philippe III while he was arguably not the heir.

The problem is that it was a common policy. Just for the sons and brother of Louis VIII and the sons of Louis IX you have : Toulouse-Poitou-Auvergne, Anjou, Auvergne, Artois, Valois, Alencon-Perche, Clermont, and i'm probably forgotting some.
I'm not taking about capetian Burgundy, that was created long before.

It was used, not to prepare annexions (the vast majority of these weren't annexed until a long time) but to protect a sphere of influence (or creating it) when the king didn't have enough ressources or enough support to annex it simply and purely.

So yes, the Alphonse de Poitiers desmene wasn't expected to be so fast united with the royal desmene, in fact this one acted like a real count of Tolosa in his "foreign policy" rather than a puppet of the throne.

Technically, Toulouse should have gone to a cadet line of the Raimonides born from one of Raymond VI's brother, the Toulouse-Lautrec (who gave us the famous XIXth century French painter Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec), as Alphonse of Poitiers held the county jure uxoris. Philippe III could just have left the county to the Toulouse-Lautrec line but he didn't and instead worked his way into getting the country.

The problem is that, following occitan customs. The direct descendent, woman or man have the proeminance. Think about Alienor of Aquitaine by exemple.
So yes, the Capetians are more close than the lines issued from Raimond.
In fact the Toulouse-Lautrec used this name only in the XVII century, when nobody would mind it. It was a younger son of the Lautrec that wanted to show how important he was.

Plus, annexing French fiefs was one of the objectives of the Capetians because it was a win-win situation: it got rid of irratating great nobles and it was a way of unifying their Kingdom. It's a process that continued until the Kingdom of France and Royal Dosmaine became one with the accession of Henri IV in 1589 OTL. Every Capetian after Philip II Augustus worked towards that goal (though Louis VIII's actions have to be nuanced as he splitted the Royal Dosmaine into several apanages).

No. Annexing desmenes weren't a medieval objectives : it it was, you'll have a Burgundy united to the royal desmene since the IX century, no Valois dynasty, no big desmene since the beggining.
In fact, the capetian began to have a desmene that looked big only after the defeat of John II when annexing Normandy. It's maybe the first great fief they didn't gave to someone else.

The feudal policy of Capetians was to expand the more their influence without bothering the great nobles enough to force them to the revolt. In fact, we could argue that the union with the Poitou-Toulouse launched the fashion of annexing and keeping rather than redistributing. Of course, it's in great part due to the fact the union was made peacefully, with nobody lesed in the process with the king didn't fearing a revolt against that. But even with this acquisition, you don't have many "annexions" before the outcome of HYW. Even the Valois Louis XI have "only" the half of the kingdom : IDF, Normandy, Champagne, Berry (these ones being already in Capetian desmene before the death of Alphonse) and Languedoc, Guyenne and Dauphiné. (inherited, annexed and brought).

For Navarre-Bearn, you're making here an anachronistic comparison. In 1270, it's still feudal times, in 1590 it's modern times. Different institutions, different law system, different referents...Normal, when you have more than 300 years of difference.

Of course, the fact that Alphonse wasn't heir to the French crown but only second-in-line is there. However, it technically had the possibility of making the County "Capetian". That's not an annexation, but it would have made a friendly vassal in Southern France.

And? Many second-on-line were made counts of such :territories : generally as the situation didn't changed, when they aceeded to royalty (or duchy for non-royal nobles) they just given the title to someone else, as the dynasty didn't had the way of controlling the county/duchy/territory.

For "friendly", yes but it's to be relativised.ALphonse used to rule his county as a autonomous count, not as a puppet. In fact, he took back somes territories his father in law lost (Provence, part of southern Albi viscounty) and became farily powerful.

And of course, in a case of an heir, it would have been less and less "friendly". Remember the Valois-Bourgogne, after 1 generation, they were already hostiles to their cousins.

 

[Elfwine]

Err...No. It's the reverse situation. FIRST Amaury gives the titles to the king, THEN the curch validate it. Of course, Amaury gives titles void of sense as he lost almost everything.

Maybe I'm misreading, but this says that the Church confirmed it and Amaury surrendered all titles involved, doesn't mention which came first except by the order its written.

What about the men that stand in service, but tried to slow the king, to avoid him annexing lands, as Tibault de Champagne?

What about them?

Military promenade? Well, somwhat it's true. But it's interrupted by the siege of Avinhon that wasn't particularly short and pleasant as the king had trouble to be obeyed of his own men and as he was sickened here.
The city standing 3 months against the king, critically a city serving as the key to enter in Lengadoc, could be considered as a military promenade itself. In fact, it allowed to delaying his expedition long enough to have a pale mirror of what his army was while the men that were still within weren't particularly agreeing with the goals of the king.

But yes, you have surrender of cities (that probably didin't wanted to loose the autonomy they had, as Avinhon did). But the military power of these cities are not really the main problem for Louis, as the campaigns of Simon showed.
Even that, tough, was void of meaning as Louis couldn't attack in the facts : not army big enough, reluctant vassals...He just left the idea to attack this year, and died soon after.

So, what Louis wanted to do : annex the Lengadoc, and especially the county of Tolosa? Fail.

If he's able to set up royal administration at least to a limited extent, that hardly sounds like he's failing here. Not fully successful, but not defeat - simply an incomplete campaign.

Well, since 1942, our vision of the crusade evolved a bit. The book is somewhat obsolete today (even if many of the work of Fawtier is still interesting, critically in his critics of sources) and when it was published in 1942, its goal was to say "hey, France is maybe defeated, but it happened in the past and we're still there". I'm not sure about using it.

Could I suggest you "France in the Middles-Ages 987-1460" of Georges Duby? It's translated in english, and i suppose that you wont have many troubles to find it.

Will hunt down a copy. I found Fawtier in a used bookstore by sheer chance.

"As the ones his father and his grand father led in Maconnais, the expedition in the south was easy. Nobles of the Narbonensis pledged their alliegance while the king marched in the imperial lands with his sword of justice raised.
But an unexpected obstacle prevented him to continue.

Beyond the river, the urban communauties grew. Bartering their support to the count of Tolosa they gained new powers. Their italian-like policy made them little hard to submit states.

[Details about the siege, to resume, they tought it would be easy to just enter in the city. They were wrong. Louis was persuaded that it was because of the heresy (that of course didn't made any communauty worth of mention here) and besieged it. Hard sun, dysentery-bearing swamps. And the fact the king prevented his men to plunder the city, forbidding them to get wealth this way, just made his army unwilling to continue : what was the point if only the king would benefit of it?]

"If we trust Guillaume of Puylaurens, the previous king always tought that his fragile son would die in the sunny lands"
[It's proposed as an explanation of why Philippe didn't want his son to be part of the souther expedition of 1219, that failed too]

I think the idea of the military promenade is purely after this siege, so how nasty it was is secondary.

The expedition of Louis didn't give to the crown the lands he wanted. What gave Louis IX a part of these said lands was the political diplomacy : the Count took back his desmene (at the exception of Mediterranean lands, that were in the hands of Trencavel before the crusade anyway). In fact, the lands Raimond lost that was in his possession was the south of Albi viscounty that he took after Raimond Roger and Simon deaths. His core land was totally recognized as his own, as long he fought the heresy.

Again, i wait you show me where the occitan lords were replaced by french ones.
Because, you know, it wasn't. The policy of Louis IX, to pardon massivly and to integrate the occitan nobility as Oliviers de termes at the place of french ones was particularly interesting for this and you could see the results during Philippe le Bel reign by exemple.

In fact, the only worth of mention exemple was the replacement of Trencavel by the king of France. And he acted like an occitan lords as long it regarded his southern desmene. Not talking that ALphonse de Poitiers took back in co-suzerainty (another occitan policy) some lands in Provence that his father-in-law lost.

To quote Fawtier (for comparison with Duby) in regards to the consequences of Raymond's death in 1249: "The succession was an important matter. It involved the county of Toulouse, Albigeois (north of the river Tarn), Rouergue, the Comtat Venaissin (returned to Raymond in 1234), Agenais and Quercy (in which royal authority had made important advances)."

That happened only because of the train of events set in motion by Count Raymond (VII it seems) being forced to agree to the terms involving the disposal of his lands, which only occurred because of the crusade.

Not really in the way you would want. Have you an idea on how much cities submitted during the crusade? Hell, all of them probably submitted themselves at least once or twice. But when the expedition goes in another place, you had "well, in fact we don't see the interest of submitting anymore".

I'm not sure, but I want to read Duby first.

Louis didn't accomplished ANYTHING. He died before Isabeau had the idea to marry Alphonse to Joanna of Tolosa. Result of his expedition : nuts.

So, yeah, maybe matrimonial policy isn't as galmour that sucessful military expedition by a chevalresque king, but it worked when the king failed. Simple as that.

Again, you're mixing two events. I don't know how to say you : the crusade was officialy finished in 1226 during the treaty of Meaux.
Outcome : the french king gained a domain that was 1/3 of what he claimed, the count of Tolosa remained independent and strong, the occitan cities gained more liberties than ever, and some nobles (as Provença, Fois, Comminges) became more independent. With church gained or reinforcing lands in the south.

Chevelresque = chivalrous? Chivalry and all those qualities.

And if the crusade ended with the treaty of Meaux, what is what Louis is doing here under the Cross?

So, at the treaty of Meaux, what about the objectives?
1)Catharism, still there and prosperous, thanks to ask.
2)Overthrowing occitan lords, and replacing them with french ones. With the exception of Louis IX becoming count of Carcassona and Nimes and relying on occitan nobility to secure it, it was a big fail.

You're free to say "oh but the crusade lasted as long the count of Tolosa wasn't died" or anything else as it's your right to propose such an interpretation.

But for everyone else, crusade ended in 1229. What happen next his consequences and...i don't want to be rude just i don't have the right words here...history is about the facts and their consequences, and the consequences of the consequences. The acquisition of Upper Languedoc is not directly issued from Crusade, as the Western Schism wasn't. It's just consequences, unexpected and being sort of surprising.

And those consequences see the area not being in the hands of the Trevencals and the...whatever dynasty Raymond is, the area passing to the French crown, and otherwise having its status change.

I'm not sure how you get the treaties involved except because of the intervention - which happened to mean military force - by the crown.

So if you want to look at it as a matter of the "crusades" failing but the treaties doing it, then I'll reword my question: What happens to the region without them? If the conflict ends with the crown forced to accept the situation after the de Montforts are driven out?

 

[LSCatilina]

Maybe I'm misreading, but this says that the Church confirmed it and Amaury surrendered all titles involved, doesn't mention which came first except by the order its written.

Okay, i just supposed that the order reflected the chronological time.
To say it simple, Amaury couldn't take back "his" domains, and he gave it to the king when he understood that Louis didn't intended to help him to form a rival principality. The curch role here was only to make the transfer (as Amaury couldn't just let this claime like that, it was a reward from papacy to the Monforts, not a title granted by the king and that would return to him)

What about them?

They left for these reasons
-Louis didn't intended to let them plunder the cities.
-Louis intended to take a big noble desmene, and it was kind of threatening for the big nobles presents.
-Louis treated them more or less like if they were just vassals instead of powerful nobles.

For medieval minds, putting the king as the main beneficer of such an expedition was translated as a "WTF, dude?".

If he's able to set up royal administration at least to a limited extent, that hardly sounds like he's failing here. Not fully successful, but not defeat - simply an incomplete campaign.

But HE didn't put a royal administration. He DIED two months after entering in the land. The administration is from his sucessor, after the crusade was ended. The only thing he did for creating an administration was to name Humber de Beaujeu governor with only 500 men as an army.

Will hunt down a copy. I found Fawtier in a used bookstore by sheer chance.

I must say i'm quite surprised it was translated and still findable. What's the date of the translation?

I think the idea of the military promenade is purely after this siege, so how nasty it was is secondary.

After the siege...Louis VII finished the siege of the city in September, and goes in Lengadoc in October, lefting it in November.
Sure, cities "submitted" as they did during all the Crusade but i'm not sure about calling "promenade" an expedition that is not even able to besiege Tolosa which was its main objective.
Defeating Trencavel at Limoux and having Tolosa submitting would have been a promenade. But he didn't made the first, and failed to have the possibility to do the second.

To quote Fawtier (for comparison with Duby) in regards to the consequences of Raymond's death in 1249: "The succession was an important matter. It involved the county of Toulouse, Albigeois (north of the river Tarn), Rouergue, the Comtat Venaissin (returned to Raymond in 1234), Agenais and Quercy (in which royal authority had made important advances)."

That happened only because of the train of events set in motion by Count Raymond (VII it seems) being forced to agree to the terms involving the disposal of his lands, which only occurred because of the crusade.

I didn't say the counts of Tolosa were independent after the crusade. But they weren't BEFORE.
And while the sucession was important matter for the count (and he tried to breed a son right after agreeing to the treaty), it couldn't have changed the situation of the policy of the county whatever the guy in charge was a Raimond or a Capet : Alphonse de Poitiers wasn't a puppet and ruled his county following mainly his own interests (that matched his brothers expeditions in Mediterranea)

I'm not sure, but I want to read Duby first.

Duby book is not about the crusade itself. If you want to search such, i would council you Michel Roquebert. But i don't know if his works were translated, perhaps as he's one of the specialist on the question.

But if the crusade lasted 20 years (20 years for a pocket territory, that is not even much big as a today french region), it was because you have perpetual revolts. When a crusader took a place, another one submitted two months ago revolted.

Chevelresque = chivalrous? Chivalry and all those qualities.

And if the crusade ended with the treaty of Meaux, what is what Louis is doing here under the Cross?

Because...Louis VIII died 3 years before the treaty of Meaux?

And those consequences see the area not being in the hands of the Trevencals and the...whatever dynasty Raymond is, the area passing to the French crown, and otherwise having its status change.

Ok, so. 1209-1229 : Crusade.
County passing to Alhponse : 1241.
County passing to the king : 1271.

You have more than 40 years of difference between the end of the crusade and the union of lands. Saying the union to the royal desmene is directly issued from crusade is making as much sense than saying Holcaust is directly issued from the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

I'm not sure how you get the treaties involved except because of the intervention - which happened to mean military force - by the crown.

You mean, apart the Treaty was passed 3 years after the failure of the expedition to take the land, right when Humbert failed to crush the county of Tolosa?
The treaty was passed as a compromise, not a imposed text.

So if you want to look at it as a matter of the "crusades" failing but the treaties doing it, then I'll reword my question: What happens to the region without them? If the conflict ends with the crown forced to accept the situation after the de Montforts are driven out?

Correction, I don't see it such : almost everyone thinks this way.
After Louis VII death, the situation was still chaotic and war-like between Raimond and Humbert, with revolts, devastations and so.

As the crusade failed to gather these lands to the religious orthodoxy, and as the power of his governor was seriously challenged, it was decided to end this.

For the question...I would say "no". The royal power was challenged, the pope was calling for another crusade there and Philippe Auguste wasn't the kind of man to just let other people just doing anything in HIS kingdom. But lets admit the future Louis VIII die in the 1219 expedition : Philippe Hurepel de Clermont would became the heir.

OTL Raimond tried to make anew alliegance to the king. Philippe refused that because the church wasn't agreeing. But again, let's admit that Raimond became more active in the repression of catharism, showing he's really into orthodoxy. Granted he would loose many allies (but he'll loose them anyway when the king or royal forces would move down there), but he will be in good position to be "pardoned".

So, as Philippe "III" was OTL opposed to Blanche de Castille (and therefore busy to down her power), and as Raimond VII would show that he want to crush catharism...Well, the king could have more easily pardon to the count and acknowledge a status quo ante bellum regarding Tolsan and Trencaval desmene (as OTL the Trancavel used the same tactic than Raimond "We'll crush heretics, but give our lands back please).

In fact, with a king more busy with internal business, both could have took back their lands. Of course, it would mean that the Aragon would be still chased from southern France, and that the lands of Trencavel would be likely considered as from the Capet instead of the Aragon.

 

[Elfwine]

Okay, i just supposed that the order reflected the chronological time.
To say it simple, Amaury couldn't take back "his" domains, and he gave it to the king when he understood that Louis didn't intended to help him to form a rival principality. The curch role here was only to make the transfer (as Amaury couldn't just let this claime like that, it was a reward from papacy to the Monforts, not a title granted by the king and that would return to him)

Makes sense.

But HE didn't put a royal administration. He DIED two months after entering in the land. The administration is from his sucessor, after the crusade was ended. The only thing he did for creating an administration was to name Humber de Beaujeu governor with only 500 men as an army.

Dying after only a short time doesn't mean he isn't beginning the work.

I must say i'm quite surprised it was translated and still findable. What's the date of the translation?

The copyright says 1960. Several reprintings since then, though - although the most recent as of my copy is 1978.

After the siege...Louis VII finished the siege of the city in September, and goes in Lengadoc in October, lefting it in November.
Sure, cities "submitted" as they did during all the Crusade but i'm not sure about calling "promenade" an expedition that is not even able to besiege Tolosa which was its main objective.
Defeating Trencavel at Limoux and having Tolosa submitting would have been a promenade. But he didn't made the first, and failed to have the possibility to do the second.

Not needing to do so in order to see the towns and/or lesser lords submit might well be one, however.

I didn't say the counts of Tolosa were independent after the crusade. But they weren't BEFORE.
And while the sucession was important matter for the count (and he tried to breed a son right after agreeing to the treaty), it couldn't have changed the situation of the policy of the county whatever the guy in charge was a Raimond or a Capet : Alphonse de Poitiers wasn't a puppet and ruled his county following mainly his own interests (that matched his brothers expeditions in Mediterranea)

Even if he's not a puppet, that doesn't mean he isn't friendly to royal interests as opposed to opposing them.

Duby book is not about the crusade itself. If you want to search such, i would council you Michel Roquebert. But i don't know if his works were translated, perhaps as he's one of the specialist on the question.

But if the crusade lasted 20 years (20 years for a pocket territory, that is not even much big as a today french region), it was because you have perpetual revolts. When a crusader took a place, another one submitted two months ago revolted.

It probably talks about Louis enough to be worth checking, though.

Because...Louis VIII died 3 years before the treaty of Meaux?

"the crusade was officialy finished in 1226 during the treaty of Meaux."

Louis dies in 1226. I think something got lost in the cracks of English as a second language.

I hate to say that because I generally have an easy time understanding your English.

Ok, so. 1209-1229 : Crusade.
County passing to Alhponse : 1241.
County passing to the king : 1271.

You have more than 40 years of difference between the end of the crusade and the union of lands. Saying the union to the royal desmene is directly issued from crusade is making as much sense than saying Holcaust is directly issued from the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

How long passes isn't nearly as important as whether or not there's a connection between the events.

You mean, apart the Treaty was passed 3 years after the failure of the expedition to take the land, right when Humbert failed to crush the county of Tolosa?
The treaty was passed as a compromise, not a imposed text.

But why is Raymond agreeing to this if he's doing such a good job fending off Humbert and all? Why does he need to agree to anything that limits him any more than the counts were limited before (that they're vassals of the French crown with the usual rights and responsibilities)

Correction, I don't see it such : almost everyone thinks this way.
After Louis VII death, the situation was still chaotic and war-like between Raimond and Humbert, with revolts, devastations and so.

As the crusade failed to gather these lands to the religious orthodoxy, and as the power of his governor was seriously challenged, it was decided to end this.

For the question...I would say "no". The royal power was challenged, the pope was calling for another crusade there and Philippe Auguste wasn't the kind of man to just let other people just doing anything in HIS kingdom. But lets admit the future Louis VIII die in the 1219 expedition : Philippe Hurepel de Clermont would became the heir. OTL Raimond tried to make anew alliegance to the king. Philippe refused that because the church wasn't agreeing. But again, let's admit that Raimond became more active in the repression of catharism, showing he's really into orthodoxy. Granted he would loose many allies (but he'll loose them anyway when the king or royal forces would move down there), but he will be in good position to be "pardoned".

So, as Philippe "III" was OTL opposed to Blanche de Castille (and therefore busy to down her power), and as Raimond VII would show that he want to crush catharism...Well, the king could have more easily pardon to the count and acknowledge a status quo ante bellum regarding Tolsan and Trencaval desmene (as OTL the Trancavel used the same tactic than Raimond "We'll crush heretics, but give our lands back please).

In fact, with a king more busy with internal business, both could have took back their lands. Of course, it would mean that the Aragon would be still chased from southern France, and that the lands of Trencavel would be likely considered as from the Capet instead of the Aragon.

Makes sense.

 

[LSCatilina]

Dying after only a short time doesn't mean he isn't beginning the work.

Indeed. But he didn't began the work.
Seriously, he didn't had the time to do anything, he didn't have the ressources in fact, and he didnt do anything but putting a governor.

The copyright says 1960. Several reprintings since then, though - although the most recent as of my copy is 1978.

Well, i suppose the date of the traduction make sense. For the reprint in the other hand...I mean, we have so much progressed in medieval studies in the sixties/seventies.

Not needing to do so in order to see the towns and/or lesser lords submit might well be one, however.

Erm. Yes, he needed that. After he left, these cities just turned back to their lords as noboddy was powerful enough to force them to be loyals. It's mainly why the crusade lasted 3 years after this expedition.

Even if he's not a puppet, that doesn't mean he isn't friendly to royal interests as opposed to opposing them.

He didn't was opposed to these interest because, it was his owns mainly. Critically regarding mediterranean policy, with Charles d'Anjou ambitions.
Don't forget he was probably the richest man in France, and in fact...I suppose the king to have been more opposed to Alphonse's interest than Alphonse towards the king.

But, yes, he was friendly towards the Capet, as Philippe II de Bourgogne was friendly towards Jean II and Charles V. It don't engage the whole desmene though, and a surviving "alphonsine" county would have probably finished as a "Burgundy of the South" (Monfort with occitan "Flanders", Alphonse with occitan Burgundy...I suppose a suviving mondine dynasty would have made an occitan "Occitania" )

It probably talks about Louis enough to be worth checking, though.

Ah, yes. I checked that.

"the crusade was officialy finished in 1226 during the treaty of Meaux."

Louis dies in 1226. I think something got lost in the cracks of English as a second language.

I hate to say that because I generally have an easy time understanding your English.

Sorry, it's a typo. The treaty was pssed in 1229, as i said in the other posts.

How long passes isn't nearly as important as whether or not there's a connection between the events.

History is all about connections between the events. We're currently connected with the first time an human being learned how to make fire.
What is relevant is to know where are the direct connections. So here, a direct consequence of the crusade is County of Tolosa entering for the first time in the sphere of influence of the french Kingdom.

Another consequence, but not direct, is the county passing to sphere of influence to united.

But why is Raymond agreeing to this if he's doing such a good job fending off Humbert and all? Why does he need to agree to anything that limits him any more than the counts were limited before (that they're vassals of the French crown with the usual rights and responsibilities)

Did i said "he did a good job"? No. What i said is Humbert as all his predecessor failed to fulfill his objectives.
Both sides agreed on the treaty because it was already 20 years that the war ravaged the land, and as the germans threatened again the Capet who saw his meridional lands in a perpetual war, while the Raimond saw his lands ravaged in a continual mix-up...

So they agreed on this : Capet renounced to take Tolosa, and Raimond acknowledged the former Trencavel lands as part of the royal desmene
The walls and fortification of around 30 cities are to be destroyed, but Raimond would gain lands in Albigès and the king would help him to press lands held by England.

More important, while before the acknowledgment of the french king was almost nominal (at the point that Raimond VI hesitated only a short time before pledging alliegance to Peire d'Aragon in 1212), in 1229 it was clear for everyone that Capet were the lieges and they had the ways to force Raimond to obey.

The count tried once to ally himself with ennemies of Louis IX after 1229. He didn't made that a second time, even if the king didn't crushed him (mainly because he was both busy elsewhere, and not really enjoying the prespective of another expedition that wouldn't end as well he could hope).

And even from a submitted county (instead of an annexed county that wanted Louis VIII), his sucessor managed to take back many lands, showing that the core power of the count wasn't really definitly damaged.