He remain the one who reversed the relatively tolerant policy of the late reign of Philip Augustus and he pretty much did everything appart from expulsing them, to the point where the expulsion seem more like Philip IV pushing his policies to their conclusion then anything he did himself. All in all, he was not completely out of lines with his time but to paraphrase a french historian his policy and his subsequent prestige helped push Europe further on the wrong direction.
You know, tolerance in the middle ages had a very different meaning than nowadays. Tolerance originally had a much more negative connotation: you tolerated what you couldn't get rid of. The modern-day meaning that equates Tolerance to an open-mind only came at a later point.
Furthermore, as Europe drew closer to the XIVth Century and the eventual catastrophes that would happen there, you also realise that society tended to close itself more and more and became a tad bit more intolerant. You also have to remember that the Papacy was the utmost and higher moral authority for middle age Europe and that Religion, unlike nowadays, played a huge part. And during the times Louis ruled, the papacy was pushing for more and more anti-judaïc measures. If you have to blame someone for the anti-judaïc climate of Europe at the time and for the excesses committed by christians against the jews, blame the various Popes that asked for such measures to be taken. Not the Kings that were their devout followers and who heavily based their religious legislations on what was asked of them by religious authorities.
Saint Louis is only guilty of following the movement of what was done at its time. And even then, he probably was kinder than most and not as closed-minded as others in his times, going by the following examples:
- There was only one thing close to a pogrom during his rule called the Tueries des juifs. All the participants in that affair were forced to pay amends by Louis. An intolerant bigot wouldn't have done such a thing, even if granted money doesn't make up for murder.
- There are absolutely no accounts of jews being accused of ritual murders during Saint Louis' rule. Despite the fact it was an awfully common antijudaic attack at the time.
- In 1257/1258, Louis named a commission that was tasked to correct the excessive applications of his antijudaic measures. I doubt a true bigot would care about excessive acts committed agaisn a minority he's actually repressing...
- Louis repeatdly condemend usury throughout his life, and the jews were always target because they often practiced usury. Yet Louis never banished them, despite the fact he banished lombad and florentine bankers as well as most foreign usurers in 1268...
- The Pope asked all European princes to confiscate all copy of the Talmuds in their realm in 1239. Saint Louis followed the order in 1240, which is pretty early. However, Louis caring deeply about justice and wanting an objective decision to be made, organized a grand debate to know if the Talmud was injurious to Christians. While the eventual ruling resulted in the Talmud being declared infamous and that all exemplaries should be burned, a true bigot wouldn't really have cared to give it a trial. Especially given that Louis had asked four of the greatest intellectual rabbis of his time to defend the text.
- The jews were required by the fourth council of Latran to wear the rouelle, which is basically the medieval equivalent of a yellow star (though without the genocidal connotations linked with that) in 1215. The decision was confirmed in the council of Narbonne in 1227. Henri III of England applied this measure in 1218. Emperor Frederick II, held by some as Saint Louis' very opposite in every way, did so in 1221. Louis waited until 1269 before putting said measures in place... one year before his death, and under the influence of Pablo Christiani, a converted jew.
Again, overall, Saint Louis still published a number of laws that were repressive against the jews so I can agree he's not completely blameless. But when you get the historical context behind these measures combined with the actual actions of the man, it's hard to deny that he was basically only following suit and that he wasn't as assholish as others rulers could turn out to be.
Without the crusades he wouldn't have been canonised and considering everything I would disagree with you: his dedication to religion brought more harm then good. His personnal practices mean nothing on the grand scheme of things and whatever further interests he had in justice didn't compensate for the harm his fanaticism did.
Have you ever read anything on Saint Louis' life? If you really think his crusading is the only thing that got him canonized, you know nothing of the man nor of how canonization and sainthood work in Christiannity.
For one thing, going on crusade alone was never considered enough to be declared a saint. I mean, as far as I know, neither Geoffroy de Bouillon, nor Richard the Lionherat nor even Fredriech Barbarossa or (gasp) Philip Augustus were declared saints despite all of them going on a crusade...
Saint Louis was already held in a very high regard for his piety while he was alive. How could he not? His whole life he cared deeply about being a good christian and to do so followed every command of the church in regards to morality, performed numerous actions of charity, etc... Hell, his obsession with justice was primarily motivated by his faith. By the way, his "fanaticism" as you called him also led him to build several auspices and he genuinely cared for the poor...
Two years after Louis' death, Pope Gregory X asked Geoffroy de Beaulieu (Louis' confessor) for details about the King of France's life because he considered him to be a true model for Christian Princes. The resulting libelle written by Geoffroy concluded that Louis was worthy of canonisation. This eventually led to repeated calls for Louis' canonisation as well as several inquiries about his life: Catholicism is an extremly procedural religion and you're not declared a saint without proper research done to confirm your good actions and the fact your performed a few miracles. This eventually led by Saint Louis' canonisation in 1297 by Pope Boniface VIII for two reasons: it was a way to improve relationship with France (Philippe IV wasn't on the best of terms with the Pope) and because he was sincerly convinced Louis was a saint. And you know what's interesting about Saint Louis' canonisation? It took a relatively short time to get him canonized: most canonization procedurals are WAAAAAAY longer by comparison.
It tells you how much Louis was considered a righteous man at his time.
I can give him that said practices where good for France prestige (hence the demands of arbitration) but even then the balance isn't in his favour here.
Most historians strongly disagree with you. Saint Louis is often held as one of the three great Kings of the Direct Capetians dynasty with his grandfather Philip II and grandfather Philip IV. If he's held in such high regards, it's because he is considered to have done far more good than bad overall.
As for his crusade, I hold a view that post La Forbie the christian kindgom of Jerusalem was done for and that his survivals for a few decades had more to do with the Mongols then with anything Saint Louis did.
Considering than Saint Louis involved himself in the talks of alliances with the Mongols and that you say they're the main reasons the crusading states survived as long as they did, then I'm sorry but you proved my point that he actually helped them. Not to mention that the Mongols aren't the only things Louis did: he involved himself in the local politics at the time he was in the Holy Land, reinforced the fortifications, brought back a bit of order among the nobility who had become a bit too autonomous (that's what happens when the atual King of Jerusalem, Conrad II, is miles away...). It wasn't enough to save the crusader states, but to say he bought them a few years isn't really an exageration as far as I'm concerned.
The main growth experimented by the royal domains in his reign was at the expanse of the County of Toulouse, so more the works of his parents then his own.
Louis was declared major in 1234. In september of that same year, he solved the war of Succession of Champagne that recognised Thibault of Champagne as count in exchange for an indemnity to be given to Alix de Champagne-Jerusalem. Since Thibault didn't have the money to pay said indemnity, he negotiated with Louis and gave him in exchange the counties of Blois, Chartres, Chateaudun and Sancerre. These counties were part of the Kingdom of France but not of the royal desmene at the time Thibault ceded them... Which also technically the case of Toulouse, the example you give.
Then you have to account for Louis' marriage to Margaret of Provence that resulted in the addition of the baille of Aix-en-Provence.
The 1258 treaty of Corbeil with Aragon had the French renounced on their claim to the former
Marcia Hispanica in exchange for Aragon giving up its claim on Languedoc and Provence. The 1259 treaty of Paris for its part so Henri III of England regain parts of his lands in Limousin, Quercy and Saintonge in exchange for a complete renonciation of his rights to Normandie, Anjou, Maine and Poitou.
So sorry to say, but you can't claim all he did was add Toulouse to the realm... He actually consolidated what had been done by his grandfather Philip Augustus there.
His judicial reforms where in many ways a continuation of those of Philip Augustus and one can wonder how much of his actual touch was in them. Even more so, the prosperity of France under his reign was more about reaping the fruits of his grandfather works (witch he didn't destroy, I can give him that much) then about anything he did and France assumption of the first rank among european powers had more to do with the decline of the Staufens then anything else.
I'm sorry but that's just as unfair to say that. If pursuing the policies of your ancestors discredit you from what you accomplished, then I'm afraid even Philip Augustus has to be taken down from his pedestal given that a good number of his reforms are actually continuations of those established by his grandfather Louis VI and father Louis VII... Philip just happend to be a whole lot more successful than the two of them.
It's also blatantly neglecting that Louis was King of France from 1228 to 1270: that's 42 years of rule and I'm pretty sure he didn't stay praying in his own little corner. In fact, given the number of reforms he promulgated during his reign, it would be quite surprising, especially given how effective they were. And again, Saint Louis is considered one of the three great Kings of the Direct Capetians by most historians... Why such a status if he was so ineffective like you say?
Plus, Philippe IV himself also pursued some of the reforms of his grandfather... So what? Should I also disqualify him? That would be kinda counter-productive since you insist he's a Great King and I wouldn't disagree with you on that...
Baelor is part of a work of fantasy so of course everything is upped to the roof but the comparaison with Saint Louis is something pretty widespread since years, I am definitely not the first who came up with it. Ultamitely tough, Saint Louis being put to the same level then the two Philip's in popular memory only outline their similarities: both zealots with good publicity.
Not quite. If you carefully read ASOIAF, you realise that while the common illiterate folk helds him in high regards, the actual litterary person and a good deal of the nobility are actually quite skeptical about Baelor's rule. They agree he was a nice guy with a genuine faith but overall most scholars agree that Baelor was far more harfmul to the Seven Kingdoms than he is often remembered as.
Saint Louis for his part? Most scholars, past or modern-day, will point you that while he was a zealous christian, he also actually did a good deal of work for his kingdom. He isn't just remember for his faith, he is also remembered for putting into place a good deal of reforms and for contributing heavily into turning France more away from a feudal monarchy and into a modern state. Sure, his contribution alone isn't enough to have the move, but he still contributed a great deal. Summing up Louis IX thus as "a zealot with good publicity" is thus frankly insulting to the guy.
For the record, I never said that you were the first to make the comparison. Where we disagree though is in how fair this comparison is... I can agree to a certain point on the zeal (as you pointed out, Baelor's off the charts because he is made up character from a Fantasy world) but in regards to how effective as a ruler they each were then I'm sorry but Saint Louis actually did far too much for the comparison with Baelor to work...