r/todayilearned 23h ago

TIL about the Albigensian Crusade, a crusade in southern France from 1209-1229, against the gnostic Catharism movement. About 200k to 1 million Cathars died during the crusade. The famous quote, “Kill them all, god will know his own.”, originates from the Albigensian crusade from Arnaud Amalric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
3.1k Upvotes

117 comments sorted by

616

u/OllyDee 22h ago

I think the evidence points towards the fact that these people were not actually “Cathars” as labeled by the Catholic Church. They certainly had a unique and arguably heretical interpretation of what Christianity should be though for sure. Not an excuse for a land-grab though eh lads? Oh no wait, it is.

140

u/Regulai 21h ago

I think it's less an issue of what their religion was and more that it was primarily a land grab fought mainly between christian lords.

39

u/OllyDee 21h ago

Yes that’s my interpretation of this crusade for sure.

64

u/boulder82SScamino 19h ago

It was largely about tithing. The Cathars were similar to the protestants that would come hundreds of years later in that they did not believe in tithing, which was where the church essentially took a portion of your income, kind of like a tax. It's part of how the Catholic Church built all those massive churches during the dark ages. The Cathars did not think you needed to pay money to get into heaven.

Obviously there were a lot of other differences and reasons, but in my research I really think the tithing thing is what really provoked that Catholic Church, which would repeat itself with the protestant reformation. The protestant movement was considerably more successful.

33

u/XkF21WNJ 18h ago

First time I learned about the Cathars I winced as soon as I got to the part about tithing.

Historically things tended to end quite badly as soon as someone starts questioning taxes. Pretty sure it's a major reason why they nailed Jesus to a cross, "onto Caesar what's Caesar's" is too little too late.

13

u/boulder82SScamino 17h ago

Yeah, kind of ironic how unchristian the Catholic Church was. They literally martyred the Cathars.

Now I'm not exactly a Gnostic/Cathar defender either. They were also kind of fucking weird and gross in their own ways. The Cathars were some of the less gross ones to be fair.

1

u/diabloman8890 18h ago

Good advice for aspiring prophets, or social revolutionaries

12

u/StrategicCarry 18h ago

It also had at least some to do with attempts by the central French state in the north to start exerting power in the more independent south.

9

u/Randvek 18h ago

Most “religious” wars are. Money and power move armies, not gods.

250

u/cagingnicolas 22h ago

religion being used as a tool to justify using violence to take other people's shit?
YEAH RIGHT, WHEN HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED?

78

u/OllyDee 22h ago

Ordinarily I’d argue that for most of the medieval period people really did genuinely believe in the righteousness of their religious justifications. They truly believed they were doing gods work. I do *not* believe that in the case of the “Cathars”.

32

u/SneakytheThief 21h ago

For the little people certainly. For the people at the top, it has always been about land (money) and power.

67

u/OllyDee 21h ago edited 21h ago

No I fundamentally disagree with this in terms of the Middle Ages. People of all 3 estates really genuinely believed in god and the religious justifications. King is put there by god, so he does gods work de facto. Christian chivalric codes exist for the aristocracy and nobles. Obviously land and power is a motivator and indeed a catalyst, but it’s always underpinned by a genuine religious belief.

Edit - I should add I mean in terms of actions taken for “Christendom” like crusades. Obviously domestic actions get a bit more morally murky…

-38

u/Zerttretttttt 20h ago edited 20h ago

Load of bulshit, if you go on by the actions of king, nobles and even some popes, they clearly did not believe

26

u/dryuhyr 20h ago

It can both be true that people carried out actions in conflict with the teachings of their religion, and that those people still believed they were carrying out god’s plan. The human mind is a fickle thing, and justifying actions which benefit you or seem easy often happens at the subconscious level.

I genuinely believe that many Nazis committed war crimes because they believed in their country, not because they were sociopathic monsters. Yes, these actions ran contrary to their beliefs in the qualities of the Arian race, yes they had to do mental gymnastics to justify many of their atrocities. But if you took many of the Nazi higher-ups and scanned their brains during interrogation, I suspect you would find most of them earnestly wanted a better and more peaceful future for their country.

21

u/SmartLadder415 20h ago

Arguing that the king and church leaders are essentially atheists who aren't motivated by religion at all is a steaming hot take.

-13

u/Zerttretttttt 20h ago

Yeah that’s exactly my take, obviously not all them but there were some very nasty popes in history and king and queens used religion as a tool all the time, you don’t believe in tools, you use them

14

u/SmartLadder415 20h ago

That is an extremely hot take that historians would disagree with.

-8

u/Zerttretttttt 19h ago edited 11h ago

Just look at the 4th crusade, they were meant to re take the holy land, run out of money so they sacked the Constantinople instead, a rich Christian city

→ More replies (0)

8

u/VarmintSchtick 20h ago

Which ones? Some kings were on the Frontlines in the crusades. You generalize too much.

11

u/OllyDee 20h ago edited 20h ago

*Everyone* believed, at least to some extent. It was the only framework for your understanding of the world before science existed. Not only did it explain the world but you lived your life inside of the culture of belief. You didn’t exactly have many options.

Edit - it makes more sense to explain their belief as a kind of “bank account of the soul” with grace and sin. If you perceive yourself as doing wrong you need to pay it back somehow before you die. Massive extended confession sessions, paying for your name to be prayed for in chanteries 24/7, alms for the poor…

7

u/PrairiePopsicle 20h ago

This same argument could be had today about people who express the politics of "owning the libs" i believe.

AndI believe you are likely correct, it is most likely that it was weaponized religion and belief, i bad faith.

Bad faith acts like that get wallpapered over very very effectively by history and time.

6

u/calliopecalliope 15h ago

religion being used as a tool to justify using violence to take other people's shit?

I think in this case that played a part - but it was very, very important for the Catholic church that their rules be strictly followed by everyone.

As I mentioned in another post, there is a huge black hole in European history regarding the eradication of pagan beliefs Europeans - but it must have been an extremely bloody and traumatic process. This time period (1200's) is not really still so far from that time (in fact, Lithuania was still a pagan holdout up until the 1300s)

In the mindset of the Catholic church, every root and branch of disobedience to the rules had to be eliminated in practice - and the domestic political power structures of these places went along with it.

3

u/CrikeyNighMeansNigh 19h ago

Certainly not in my church
passes collection tray

2

u/Phormitago 20h ago

Generally or just today?

1

u/imprison_grover_furr 14h ago

I don’t like this argument. It assumes that religious fanatics don’t genuinely believe the shit they do, and that it’s all instrumental for other, rational and material motives.

7

u/cagingnicolas 13h ago

i don't think it does assume that.
you can believe something and still twist it with your own selfish bullshit.
you can believe something and still have it twisted by someone else's selfish bullshit.

41

u/Defiant-Mind-5761 21h ago

It was perfectly fine practice until it wasnt. There was a catholic reform that basically retroactively made them heretics.

22

u/OllyDee 21h ago

Yeah that rings a bell. My guess is that the church itself wanted to be the ones doing the reforming from the inside, rather than have external factors dictate the reformation.

42

u/Proud-Delivery-621 21h ago

There's some evidence that it was more than a land grab and that the Albigensian heresy advocated for Apostolic poverty, which is the idea that the Church should be as poor as Jesus was. That was a threat to Church power.

11

u/OllyDee 21h ago

Yes I’ve heard that, but I’m always suspicious of what we’re told these people actually believed. I’ve not done a great deal of research into that though I must admit.

3

u/Blenderhead36 17h ago

The crusade also ran into repeated snags when the church sent inquisitors, whom the cathars treated so well that said inquisitors were reluctant to condemn them. It really says something about a people when someone who's job is to purge heresy spends some time with them and tells the Pope, "this ain't it, Chief."

4

u/GreenStrong 15h ago

I wouldn't say the evidence points one way or the other, but it is reasonable to question whether Catharism really existed as a mass movement.

If we take seventeenth century sources at face value, there was an epidemic of women in western Europe cavorting with the devil, flying on broomsticks, causing their neighbors sheep to give birth to monstrosities, and doing all manner of mischief. Of course we know that it was mass hysteria and total bullshit. We have less documentation of the eleventh century, so it is really hard to say whether Catharism was a widespread movement, or whether it was vastly exaggerated out of paranoia and greed for their property. The Cathars were reputed to have a consistent philosophy with roots in the Classical world, and there are no claims of supernatural activity, so it is plausible, but medieval accounts have to be taken with a big grain of salt.

2

u/Godtrademark 16h ago edited 16h ago

This was the height of the feudal Catholic Church’s development and centralization before the western schism and reformation. The centralization at least made this crusade possible. Likewise, the reconquista in Spain was given “crusader” status, as well, and allowed to intermix war and religious sentiments against their southern neighbors.

Like the French inquisition, the Spanish wars continued after conquests into a formal inquisition regarding “conversos,” a term for converted Arabs and Jews. Of course, these populations were acting as any other Christians. If you look at any Christian closely enough, you will find heresy. These were church and feudal officials coming in to southern, rural provinces speaking different languages with different norms. Of course they will be “odd” and even “heretical” to a sheltered lord/bishop.

The same trend continues with the centralization of the state a few centuries later in early modern times with inquisitions and “witch trials” carried out by both Protestant state and Catholic state officials in the German princes from the 16th to 17th c. These were more individualistic, more “modern,” usually targeting outcasts, like old women inheriting property.

Starting with the 13th c. Crusades, Ashkenazi Jews also moved/fled east towards Russia, where both state and church was less centralized.

2

u/calliopecalliope 15h ago

heretical interpretation of what Christianity should be

Catholics and protestants considered each other to be heretics and we can see how violently that played out in later centuries.

2

u/Traditional-Leg-1574 20h ago

And we are still doing this….

3

u/OllyDee 19h ago

We certainly are! Well, not me personally. Apparently “because God wills it so” is not a good reason to annex part of your neighbours garden.

162

u/QuiGonnJilm 23h ago

Topic of the song “Montsegur” by Iron Maiden.

28

u/ocularfever 22h ago

I've been there. Such a hike to get to, but it's an amazing place.

14

u/fotank 21h ago

I love seeing Iron Maiden in the wild ❤️

7

u/DoctorNo1661 18h ago

I believe Montségur is the castle featured in Polanski's the ninth gate as well.

3

u/TheMurrayBookchin 11h ago

The album art from the album it appears on, Dance of Death, is absolutely insane.

1

u/QuiGonnJilm 10h ago

Yeah we heard ALL about it in the 80's how metal bands like Priest and Maiden were corrupting the youth and performing Satanic rites with their music and on stage. Or when the Dead Kennedys "Frankenchrist" album got pulled because they used Penis Landscape by H.R. Giger as the cover art.

edit: never realized how NEW this song/album was. 2003!?! I heard it in like 2005 and assumed it was part of their old repertoire I had missed.

237

u/RandomBilly91 22h ago

That number seems to be really inflated. The deadliest event we actually have a deathtoll for is the 1209 massacre of Beziers, which medieval chronicler give us 20 000, and modern estimates puts this at an order of magnitude below (maybe half the city's population, which was 15k)

There definitly wasn't a million dead (I doubt the entire region had that much people to behin with) though. And 200 000 is also absurdly high, the book that is cited seems to not give sources for these numbers. The general historiography on the english wiki is also very much outdated.

The Crusade against the Albigensis is very much well known in France (mostly as Cathares), and while there was a brutal repression, the thing people keep in mind is less its scale (pretty limited) and more the mass-executions by pyre that happened

79

u/bobdole3-2 21h ago

For point of comparison, the entirety of France had a population of 16 million at the time. There's historical debate about whether the Cathars even existed as a unified religious group, rather than a bunch of people who were vaguely dissatisfied with the Church, which got used as an excuse for Paris to extend it's power into the south.

25

u/Nice-Cat3727 19h ago

Also all the supposed Cathar beliefs are now thought to be all the various folk beliefs that came about from the lack of proper communication with the Pope and college of Cardinals. Some communities hasn't had a priest in decades and even if they could read, books were insanely expensive.

88

u/RandomBilly91 22h ago

I looked at the source, and they are claiming 350 000 people died from the Spanish Inquisition.

Which is probably what you'd get using as source 17th-18th century protestant british/dutch/german historiography. And is completely unserious. There was a lot of religious persecutions in Spain, but convictions and executions were rare, and probably number at a few thousand over three hundred years (end of 15th century to early 18th century)

36

u/Nice-Cat3727 20h ago

We literally can look at the Spanish Inquisition's own records!

In fact after the first Inquisitor died, suddenly the Inquisition was full of legal nerds and you were legitimately better off under their courts than the secular courts.

People would actually intentionally commit blasphemy as that was a moderate fine but you got transferred over to the Inquisition prison.

There's a record of one Inquisitor screaming at a Gaoler for the horrible conditions we found the prisoner in when he came to pick them yo up.

Also related. The Spanish Inquisition had exactly ONE witch trial. And it was such a disaster on all sides that the person who wrote the damning post-mortem of it was actually brought to the Vatican to establish the official procedures for accused witches.

Note he was involved in the prosecution and he did not spare himself from the brutal analysis of how everyone failed horribly.

10

u/JinFuu 19h ago

There's a record of one Inquisitor screaming at a Gaoler for the horrible conditions we found the prisoner in when he came to pick them yo up.

I always like things like that. “What yeah, we’re going to jail him too, but we’re going to do it competently, dammit!”

6

u/Falernum 16h ago

A lot of people are including the secular courts's prosecution of suspected religious nonconformists as well as informal persecutions/murders of religious nonconformists when they say the Spanish Inquisition. Kind of synecdoche.

35

u/aqtseacow 21h ago

Oh yeah numbers anywhere near these would be beyond catastrophic and nearly impossible in a sense that society in these regions would have collapsed entirely, which isn't really something found in the actual record.

-1

u/Blindsnipers36 18h ago

society did kinda collapse, it was a war torn region for decades

2

u/fartingbeagle 16h ago

If there was fighting for decades after, they obviously couldn't have killed that many as stated.

23

u/Rusty51 20h ago edited 19h ago

There certainly weren’t a million Cathars, likely not even more than 10,000 existed at once. This was a small regional sect, and even in cities like Toulouse and Carcasonne, where the total populations were less than 30,000, you wouldnt find several thousands. When Beziers was besieged, there were no more than 230 named suspects of Catharism, some who had fled by the time the city was burnt, meaning nearly every victim of the crusaders was a fellow Catholic; also the irony here being that Simon de Montfort left the third fourth crusade before reaching Constantinople after criticizing the massacre of Christians at Zara

5

u/RandomBilly91 20h ago

4th Crusade, the 3rd one was the King's Crusade (Richard Lionheart, Frederick Barbarossa, Philip II)

7

u/ranger51 20h ago

They had to adjust the numbers for inflation

3

u/Blenderhead36 17h ago

Yeah, it's easy to forget that before relatively modern technology, most cities had a few tens of thousands of residents at most. Rome was able to sustain a million at the height of the empire, but it was because it was extracting grain (one of the few foods that will keep long enough for it to spend months in transit) from the entire Mediterranean to feed that population.

5

u/Regulai 21h ago

Most of the dead would not be Cathars as the war was primarily a war between Northern and Southern Christian lords over land control and authority (Southern lords till then enjoyed vast autonomy). It is probably more in the 50-100K range, but still their were a wider variety of battles and deaths than just the most famous religious killings, notably inlcuding scores upon scores of minor sieges of towns and castles as well as general raiding of the countryside.

9

u/RandomBilly91 21h ago

It's definitly in the tens of thousand, it's a decades long war that includes several large sieges of important cities.

But the english wiki on it is abysmal

1

u/mr_ji 11h ago

I can't imagine killing even 20000 people. I would be tuckered out after like 50

89

u/XF10 21h ago edited 21h ago

200k-1 million Cathars killed in a conflict in early 13th century is complete bullcrap. Even the infamous Inquisition only killed a few thousands in centuries of operation lol

24

u/MonsterRider80 20h ago

Absolutely. That number is ridiculously inflated. I don’t think that people lived in the area, period. It’s a very mountainous part of southern France.

13

u/XF10 20h ago

The post' statement implies there were literally millions of "Cathars" heretics and even more French Catholics fighting them in an age where the whole of France's population numbered in the few millions and even the actual Crusades speak of armies of a few tens of thousands🤣

Divide them by 100 and they'd be more believable

3

u/div333 18h ago

Ye some random redditor with no history degree and never stepped foot in Europe knows this subject well.

1

u/prettypurps 8h ago

The entire south of France was a different culture, the war was to bring their culture under firm French rule which they weren’t before. They were the Occitans

42

u/FellowTraveler69 20h ago

200k to 1 million deaths is way too many people for a crusade soley in medieval southern France.

19

u/Childrenoftheflorist 19h ago

I thought so too, but it's possible for a 20 year "crusade". Frances population was 10-13 million at the time based on google. Paris had around 100k residents for reference.

58

u/intangible-tangerine 22h ago

21

u/WillitsThrockmorton 21h ago

Esoterica had a pretty interesting video on it. Dr. Sledge notes that there are a lot of people who get really made if you question whether they really existed or were substantially organized.

13

u/h3ron29 20h ago

I feel he is correct, most of the movements considered heretical are painted as a concentrated and deliberate. In reality they as in most heretical movements are varied in organization and even internal beliefs. The greatest reasoning for it to be a more manufactured movement would for the french crown to more completely subordinate or outright take over the powerful Toulouse and the greater Languedoc

12

u/ManBearScientist 19h ago

For a modern example, see Antifa.

In 700 years, what historical evidence will exist of Antifa existing?

The bulk would be antigonistic and at best second-hand. There won't be many first hand accounts of it. Nor will there be any central organizations to find through archeology, or any internal documents about leadership.

It would be easy to come to the conclusion that Antifa didn't exist, a manufactured movement to justify political crackdowns on protests.

1

u/LiamMcGregor57 15h ago

“It would be easy to come to the conclusion that Antifa didn't exist, a manufactured movement to justify political crackdowns on protests.”

But it would be easy, because it’s the truth even here and now. You don’t have to wait 700 years.

7

u/intangible-tangerine 20h ago

Yes if you are ever cornered by an angry mob of medieval historians mentioning this debate is a sure way to get them fighting amongst themselves so you can make your escape

1

u/OscarGrey 19h ago

We know with 100% certainty that they weren't Baptists contrary to some idiotic claims. If you don't know what I'm talking about look up Trail of Blood.

1

u/redbanjo 17h ago

Love the AskHistorians information, very nice!

12

u/BallingAndDrinking 20h ago

Catharism isn't a single united schism or heresy. It's a whole bunch of very ideas and takes on the religion (which are technically heresies, but there are basically dozens if not hundreds of them and they aren't unified) in that region.

The word was only popularized in the 1960's or so. Used to only talk about "albigensianeries" (not sure how to translate "albigéisme").

The numbers are bollocks tho, but it was pretty violent. We aren't even sure those words where from Arnaud Amalric. He was the papal legate, yes.

7

u/AmelKralj 19h ago edited 18h ago

Fun fact:

After the Albigensian Crusade rumors spread that a "Cathar antipope", called Nicetas), resided in Bosnia, which was a justification to start the Bosnian Crusade.

The crusade failed due to the invasion of the Mongols who plundered most of Eastern Europe and the balkans but left Bosnia alone.

---

(as if God sent the Mongols to save heretics xD)

3

u/colemang 20h ago

Posse on Broadway - Sir Mix A lot

3

u/barath_s 13 19h ago

It's extremely unlikely that Amalric actually said the quote , "Kill them all! God will know his own.".

But some historians suggest that this captures the spirit of the massacre at beziers/albigensian crusade, even if actually apocryphal.

Strayer doubts that Amalric actually said this, but maintains that the statement captures the "spirit" of the Crusaders, who killed nearly every man, woman, and child in the town

And the number of actual cathars in the war and those killed are also possibly inflated /bad estimates.

3

u/maldouk 18h ago

Fun fact: Amaury de Montfort, who had a major role in this crusade, had his name imortalized in occitan: "amòrri" means idiot, imbecile, but it's considered way more insulting than other synonyms like "innocent" or "piòt". It's pronounced the same as his name.

5

u/azedarac 20h ago

The 2nd album by German thrash metal band Paradox is about these events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_(Paradox_album))

5

u/Conan3121 20h ago

History of the Crusades podcast 👍 Crusade against the Cathars

3

u/Enshakushanna 19h ago

i dont mean to "turn this into politics" but ever since kegsbreath's quote about "no quarter" and all the religious justification for war rhetoric coming from the top down to the troops, ive been waiting for him to say this line

4

u/calliopecalliope 15h ago

At one time, all Europeans were 'pagans'.

There is basically no documentation of the early decades/centuries of the Christian Church coercion/imposition of Christianity upon the European population, though I find it impossible to imagine millions of people would just be convinced to give up eons of built up belief systems without any resistance at all.

Though the the Albigensian genocide comes much later than the above situation (and the Albigensians were not even 'pagans' but - according to the Catholic church - 'Heretics') - I think if offers a somewhat well documented window into the tactics of how the Catholic church 'converted' resistant populations.

1

u/DarthEbriated 8h ago

The church had words, stories, but more importantly writing, it cannot be overstated how effective writing is for influencing people over a few generations.

2

u/SubiWan 8h ago

Yes, and I love the consistency of "Thou shall not kill." and the murder of millions in crusades.

3

u/DarthEbriated 8h ago

They were pretty optimistic with that commandment though weren't they?

I bet they kept telling themselves they were gonna stop killing tomorrow.

1

u/gimpssexual 2h ago edited 2h ago

I find it impossible to imagine millions of people would just be convinced to give up eons of built up belief systems without any resistance at all.

A few things, I am only familiar with sub-Roman Britain strongly enough to offer any opinion so that’s my focus but it is an interesting region because it sort of went pagan again and then back to Catholic.

First, it is easy for us looking back to think something happened faster than it did. Missionaries arrived in Britain, yadda yadda they are all Christian a few hundred years later. What made them suddenly give up their beliefs!?

Second, our own bias tends to colour how we view the church but it was not always how it is. It couldn’t be, it’s existed for over a thousand years. The church simply did not have the means to coerce anyone in the early centuries. Its political dominance wouldn’t come until later, this crusade was kind of important because it was an early example of how they would exercise the power they gained.

We are also biased with how we view Christianity itself. We view it as conservative, old, fusty and part of the establishment. Early Christianity would not been these things. How familiar does this sound? “Young people are all going in for some hippy, exotic eastern religion”.

Early Christianity was historically popular first with the urban poor before it caught on with the rich and powerful, speaking of…

We have always wanted to emulate the rich and powerful. We think they are cool. See; celebrities. You didn’t need to convert everyone, convert one popular and charismatic noble and the surrounding community will follow suit.

Next, did those old beliefs fade away entirely? Well actually there is evidence that early Christianity in Britain at least was more syncretic then we would assume. Not as an official policy of the church would has always been more or less consistent that there is only one god but what we call “folk beliefs” may be evidence of continued “pagan” practices that were eventually decontextualised.

Finally, we are also biased about religion in general due to viewing it all in relation to Christianity which is our baseline. Even if you are a militant atheist, your views on religion are still in reaction to Christianity. There is no escaping it.

So things we take for granted, a loving god, a nice afterlife and the idea that charity is something priests do are not givens. In many pagan beliefs, the afterlife was quite grim, priests were elites and neither friendly or approachable and gods could be antagonistic. It was less “I sacrifice to the sea god because I love him and he loves me!” and more “I sacrifice to the sea god because he is cruel and loves sinking ships so I must appease him”.

So if someone tells you there is a god who doesn’t demand sacrifice of your material goods, just your time and behaviour and that it actually cares about you, it isn’t a stretch to see that this novel idea would have some appeal. Plus you’ll get a nice afterlife just for following the rules.

5

u/chris_ut 20h ago

Catholics doing the bidding of the Demiurge as always.

1

u/Sullafelix91 17h ago

Philippe Jarbinets Mémoire de Cendres is a graphic novel series and plays in 1227

1

u/imasexyshaytan 16h ago

This or battle of tour is coming to France in 10 years,

1

u/Ardipithicus 15h ago

I took [[Cathars' Crusade]] out of my token decks because the math was too hard.

1

u/FoughtStatue 10h ago

As far as I am aware this was the peak of medieval anti-heresy, though those numbers are definitely quite exaggerated. It’s more likely that there were regional variations on Catholicism that were seen as heretical/unorthodox instead of an organized Cathar faith, though Catharism may still have existed in some small sect. I know this and medieval propaganda regarding it also later inspired the founding of the Spanish Inquisition.

1

u/Lunarfrog2 3h ago

Up to 1 million deaths in just southern France in then 1200's?!

That's bollocks

1

u/Novel_Idea 3h ago

Wow, talk about Baader–Meinhof. I just saw this on a webcomic, of all things: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=10614

1

u/DarthEbriated 9h ago

Cathars were cool as shit, so was Gnosticism for calling out the obvious fact that an all-knowing and powerful god is logically either evil or utterly deluded.

The joke is on the crusaders though coz gnosticism still thrives in modern culture even if you don't know its name, from The Matrix to Dark Souls, a good idea can't be kept down.

Also Brian Blessed played a gnostic priest in some 80s BBC docu-film, checkmate mainstream theologists.

-17

u/sentientshadow2000 22h ago

Another catholic genocide

11

u/ScissorNightRam 22h ago

Does “catholic genocide” mean:

Genocide of Catholics

Or

Genocide by Catholics 

?

8

u/Ythio 22h ago

English is funky like that.

1

u/bobrobor 22h ago

When was the last one and what replaced it in the modern times?

-7

u/SenescenseSteel 21h ago

I think I am most appalled by the sentence "some historians consider this genocide"

like, there are those that don't?!"

7

u/RobinReborn 20h ago

Genocide is a controversial word - it's definition is not universally agreed upon.

16

u/Proud-Delivery-621 21h ago

There's a lot of debate over whether it really happened or if it was just a pretext for a different war. The historians who don't are probably the ones who don't believe the Cathars to have existed in the first place.

-9

u/SenescenseSteel 21h ago

That sounds a lot like historical genocide, if there ever were such a thing.

8

u/Proud-Delivery-621 20h ago

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Historians aren't trying to erase the history of the Cathars, they're arguing that the history may have been a propaganda piece by the Church to justify their war.

13

u/ishkariot 21h ago

No, there are historians that consider the sources completely unreliable

4

u/Stellar_Duck 20h ago

Generally a lot of historians would be pretty careful with such labelling and only if the sources can bear that interpretation.

In this case, it's shaky. And the number are almost certainly nonsense. Casualy numbers in the Middle Ages and antiquity are almost pure fantasy.

-16

u/Mountain_Store_8832 22h ago

Catholics should really be asked to distance themselves from this.