Posted on 09/17/2013 5:42:00 AM PDT by NYer
No, the correct spelling is "Beziers".
vladimir998 to BJK: "Then no massacre happened in Bezier since the population contained a number of Christians as well as heretics.
You’re not helping yourself."
In fact, according to the Crusaders' Pope-appointed commander & Papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux Arnaud Amalric, in his after-action report to Pope notso-Innocent III:
Nobody -- not Catholics, their priests or Cathars -- was spared.
vladimir998: "Massacring a city would not destroy a “duchy”.
It didn’t even destroy Bezier.
The city was up and running in no time."
In fact, Beziers was utterly destroyed and its population murdered.
Yes, restorations began just a few years later, but were not completed for another 200 years.
vladimir998: "The first thing he did of any note was launch the series of vicious campaigns called “The Harrowing of the North” from 1069 to 1070.
The contemporary death toll was given as 100,000.
William essentially depopulated the North with a scorched earth policy."
In fact, The Harrowing of the North is left out of most history books, however, I classify it as part of William's conquest of Britain.
And it does not even compare to the Albigensian Crusade:
The Brits were not methodically exterminated, but died of hunger.
Many thousands more fled the British Isles to avoid a similar fate.
vladimir998: "The Church didn’t commit any crime and will never pay any price for Bezier."
I accept your claim that the Church is spiritually innocent of any crimes committed by its officials, including a Pope.
But legally any church is just as responsible as any other legal entity (i.e., corporations) for official actions of their employees.
In this particular case, the Pope officially ordered the assault, and appointed its leader, so the Church is legally responsible for the results.
Of course, 800 years later, nobody is going to collect... or will they?
vladimir998: "The Church wouldn’t be charged because the Church didn’t kill anyone."
In fact, as with any other legal entity, the Church is legally responsible for official crimes of its officials.
So I'll ask again: what is the legal statute of limitations on mass exterminations?
vladimir998: "The Day of Judgment is coming and the Church has nothing to fear at all.
Some men on the other hand do."
I was speaking metaphorically, of course, since the purpose of this particular thread is to warn us about the return of the Albigensian Heresy, this time in secular form.
I was simply warning people that the Church better hope a restored Albigensian Sect is not as brutal to the Church as it was to them.
But the point seems lost on you, right?
vladimir998: "all the apologies make it clear that people were responsible, not the Church in any culpable sense."
Spiritually, perhaps.
Legally, your distinction between Church and its officials is irrelevant.
Were a case to be brought in court, the Church itself, just as with pedophile priests, would pay the price.
vladimir998: "An apology for the actions of those men on that day would be just fine, but no confession or repentance is needed or valid..."
A sincere apology is also a confession and repentance for the Truth.
In my humble opinion, that's all that's really needed at this point.
“Nobody — not Catholics, their priests or Cathars — was spared.”
Of course that isn’t true. As the Jewish Encyclopedia notes: “On July 22, 1209, Béziers was stormed and the inhabitants massacred. Two hundred Jews lost their lives in this massacre, and a large number were driven into captivity.”
If Jews weer driven into captivity, then they were spared massacre. If Jews, who had no connection whatsoever to the combatants, were spared, then others must have been as well.
As I already noted. The town never stopped functioning. Thus, there was a population that was spared plus new inhabitants.
I'm certain, since you are an expert on all things historical, that you already know: the name "British Isles" dates back to Ancient Greece, circa 500 BC, was used by the Roman conquers, and western civilization in general throughout history.
Yes, the word "Britons" referred to original inhabitants, who later got pushed aside by Anglo-Saxons and others.
But even by 1066, the original British still lived in Wales, Cornwall & Scotland.
In summary: since 300 BC the name is "British Isles", and the people there called "Britons" by outsiders, regardless of what they may have called themselves.
First, remember: the normal population of Beziers at that time was circa 5,000 so we have to imagine that 15,000 people escaped from the countryside to the Beziers fortress for protection.
And remember: the official report from the Pope's appointed combatant commander, Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric says:
So, FRiend, now you have to ask yourself: if a few escaped, then why would the good Abbot lie and exaggerate the numbers murdered to his Pope notso Innocent III?
vladimir998: "As I already noted. The town never stopped functioning.
Thus, there was a population that was spared plus new inhabitants."
Remember, the 20,000 reported to the Pope as exterminated by Abbot Arnaud Amalric were a mere drop in a sea of blood from the estimated one million total killed in that Albigensian Crusade.
Whether those populations recovered quickly, or over many years is irrelevant to the fact that colossal crimes were committed by officials of, and in the name of, the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome.
“In fact, Beziers was utterly destroyed and its population murdered.”
Actually no. The city was not destroyed and some of the population was spared.
“Yes, restorations began just a few years later, but were not completed for another200 years.”
Actually the city never stopped functioning and recovered quite well in a relatively short amount of time. Already by the early 14th century (just 100 years after the massacre) the population was estimated to be 14,000 (see The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change by Hendrik Spruyt, page 87)
“In fact, The Harrowing of the North is left out of most history books, however, I classify it as part of William’s conquest of Britain.”
Doesn’t matter what you classify it as. It just matters what it was: 1) before the Doomsday Book, 2) a slaughter of people (gee, would someone slaughter his tax paying citizens?).
“And it does not even compare to the Albigensian Crusade”
Actually it does. For one thing, the Albigensian was an actual war with two warring sides. The Harrowing of the North was not. The crusade took a number of years. The Harrowing really took one or two only. Also, the number 1,000,000 generally is not taken seriously by historians. Remember the population in France in 1200 was about 12,000,000. The chance that one out 12 people were killed in Southern France is very unlikely.
“The Brits were not methodically exterminated, but died of hunger.”
Actually not a single Brit was killed. There were no Brits. Plenty of Anglo-Saxons died, however.
“Many thousands more fled the British Isles to avoid a similar fate.”
Actually, no. Very few people left the British isles. Where would they go when it was the Normans attacking them?
“I accept your claim that the Church is spiritually innocent of any crimes committed by its officials, including a Pope.”
It’s not a claim. It’s a fact.
“But legally any church is just as responsible as any other legal entity (i.e., corporations) for official actions of their employees.”
No. That could only be viewed as true in a nation with laws like our own in today’s world. No such understanding of law existed at that time.
“In this particular case, the Pope officially ordered the assault, and appointed its leader, so the Church is legally responsible for the results.”
No. There was no such understanding of law in that way at the time. At that time it was more understood this way: You asked for this by your actions and crime. You got it. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Also, there was simply no framework of law to try the Church since it was not a person, but the Body of Christ and respected as such in law.
“Of course, 800 years later, nobody is going to collect... or will they?”
Nope.
“In fact, as with any other legal entity, the Church is legally responsible for official crimes of its officials.”
Actually, no. There was no “official crime” in the first place since what was done was not ordered by the Church, did not necessarily contravene existing law.
“So I’ll ask again: what is the legal statute of limitations on mass exterminations?”
Your question makes no sense – no matter how often you ask it. Since all involved are dead it wouldn’t matter if there was a statute of limitations in any case.
“I was speaking metaphorically,”
I wasn’t.
“… of course, since the purpose of this particular thread is to warn us about the return of the Albigensian Heresy, this time in secular form.”
So, because a thread speaks about Albigensians in secular form you speak metaphorically? If it were about humpback whales in the Pacific would you speak anagogically?
“I was simply warning people that the Church better hope a restored Albigensian Sect is not as brutal to the Church as it was to them.”
What would it matter? No Albigensians today could be any more harsh than the communists and jihadists of the last century. We’re not afraid of martyrdom.
“But the point seems lost on you, right?”
I don’t think you made a point at all. Your “points” are pointless.
“Spiritually, perhaps.”
Okay.
“Legally, your distinction between Church and its officials is irrelevant.”
So is applying 21st century understandings of law to something that happened in 1209.
“Were a case to be brought in court, the Church itself, just as with pedophile priests, would pay the price.”
Nope. Not a bit. There are no plaintiffs and can’t be.
“A sincere apology is also a confession and repentance for the Truth.”
For John Paul II maybe. But he never apologized for the Church for he knew no such apology was necessary. The Church did nothing wrong.
“In my humble opinion, that’s all that’s really needed at this point.”
You probably won’t get it. And it will be meaningless if you do.
To be correct, 'Beziers'.
2) The Bishop of Beziers, Renaud II de Montpeyroux, tried to stop the siege. He negotiated with the crusaders. He then prepared a list of a couple of hundred known heretics. Most of the townspeople refused to hand them over to the crusaders.
IOW, they got what they deserved? Most of the town stayed and fought the pope's army along with their so called 'heretic' neighbors... and my point was that they (Cathars) were counted as friends by their neighbors, who at the point of their lives refused to give them up. So much for the 'maniacal heretics' envisioned by the author of the OP. One might wonder who the townspeople would consider the 'maniacal heretics'... But then we will never know, as they all chose to die alongside the Cathars.
Renaud II left with a handful of faithful Catholics - who clearly knew what awaited them if they stayed in the city. They and Renaud made the wise choice. They neither sided with heretics nor stayed to die with them in a siege they were all-but-guaranteed to lose.
Faithful romanists, and supposedly wise, but men of God died within the walls.
After the siege and massacre (which probably wasn’t as extensive as some think)[...]
Riiiight... I hear y'all got the Spanish Inquisition pared down to the deaths of a drunk, a prostitute, and a small burro - Ain't historical revisionism great ?
they moved back into the city and resumed their lives with the new residents who quickly moved into the city and set up shop.
No they didn't, the town was all but razed.
Caesarius of Heisterbach (ca. 1180 – ca. 1240) attributed the quote "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" (roughly. 'Kill them, God knows His own') to Arnaud.
That is exactly contemporary.
“IOW, they got what they deserved?”
In the view of the people at the time, yes.
“Most of the town stayed and fought the pope’s army along with their so called ‘heretic’ neighbors...”
There was no pope’s army. All the troops were French, raised by Frenchman, and led by Frenchman. And none of that changes the fact that the view of the day was that those in Beziers got what they had coming.
“and my point was that they (Cathars) were counted as friends by their neighbors, who at the point of their lives refused to give them up.”
Which is still irrelevant.
“So much for the ‘maniacal heretics’ envisioned by the author of the OP.”
No, the two are not mutually exclusive. The people of Beziers simply had no reason to agree to anything put forward to them by northern Frenchmen. The Cathars were destructive in their activities, but that doesn’t mean the people of Beziers would hand them over to outsiders.
“One might wonder who the townspeople would consider the ‘maniacal heretics’... But then we will never know, as they all chose to die alongside the Cathars.”
None of them chose to die. They chose to fight. What happened to them in the end was not their choice.
“Faithful romanists, and supposedly wise, but men of God died within the walls.”
Those who left were faithful and wise. Those who stayed inside were faithful to their friends and town, and died for their choice.
“Riiiight... I hear y’all got the Spanish Inquisition pared down to the deaths of a drunk, a prostitute, and a small burro - Ain’t historical revisionism great ?”
The records of the inquisition - which are accurate while the ravings of anti-Catholics are not - tell us that the number of people condemned after an inquisition trial was relatively small over quite a few years. That’s just a fact. If facts bother you, then history is not going to be enjoyable to you.
“No they didn’t, the town was all but razed.”
No, a portion of the town - the towns symbols really - were burned. Much of the town was still standing and serviceable. That’s one of the reasons why the city’s population so quickly rebounded.
“That is exactly contemporary.”
No. Caesarius wrote the Dialogus Miraculorum years later. The earliest dating is that he wrote it from 1219-1223. He was not on the scene and could not have any first hand knowledge of anything said at Beziers. I am not sure if anyone actually knows when he completed the book. You might want to read William Purkis’ very recent article, ‘Crusading and Crusade Memory in Caesarius of Heisterbach’s Dialogus miraculorum’, Journal of Medieval History, Volume 39, Issue 1, 2013, pp 100-127.
Also, there’s an old article - which I do not have access to - which showed the reasons why article’s author believed the bishop could never have said it. See Tamizey de Larroque, “Rev. des quest. hist.” 1866, 1, 168-91.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.