• from a Quora - Albigensian Crusade atrocities

    From a425couple@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 30 15:37:34 2021
    XPost: soc.history.war.misc

    Alex Mann
    M.A in History & Latin (language), Ohio University (Graduated 2016)Thu

    What are some historical atrocities most people don't know about?
    Albigensian Crusade

    When it comes to Crusades you likely think mostly about crusades in the
    Middle East. Often forgotten are the European crusades- chiefly among
    them the Albigensian Crusade.

    Around Southern France, in the 1200s there was a sect of Christianity
    called the Cathars. Cathars adhered to anti-materialism and preached
    poverty and piety. Sadly for them, their teachings went against the
    views of the church and this made them enemies.

    From 1209 to 1215 there was a massive crusade aimed at destroying the
    Cathars. Cathar territory was quickly taken and extreme acts of violence
    were carried out against civilians.


    In one famous case, the Papal Legate told the crusaders to kill every
    man, woman, and child in a city even if they were Catholic because “god
    will sort them out”.

    In this crusade up to 1,000,000 Christians were slaughtered in a brutal campaign of insane violence. It has been called genocide and truly is.
    The goal was not land or some religious icon- the goal was to eradicate
    and exterminate an entire group of people.

    From 1209–1215 there was the first stage of the genocide was a
    city-to-city slaughter. Then in 1216 when the “Crusade” ended the
    Cathars revolted and re-took the region. This resulted in the Pope
    calling for a new Crusade in 1217 and further conflict until 1225.

    This resulted in moth Cathars being massacred however the remained were
    driven underground. An inquisition was thus established in the region to violently root out the remaining Cathars.

    Women were raped by the tens of thousands, children were executed
    on-site, and cities were destroyed. The entire population of Southern
    France was targeted for extermination.

    191K viewsView 4,833 upvotesView shares · Answer requested by
    Evan Hastings
    340 comments from
    Alex Mann
    and more

    --------------------------

    Alex Mann

    Where am I getting 1,000,000?

    Well, this number comes from a book written in 1901 called “A short
    history of Christianity”.

    Now the population of France at this time was around 12 million. The
    population of this region was likely 1–2 million.

    Keep in mind this was not 1 crusade. It was a brutal genocide, followed
    by revolt, followed by another genocide, and finally an inquisition.
    Then there is economic destabilization and localized famine resulting
    from the confclit.

    What is the real number? We have no idea. Modern scholars say it could
    be 200,000 or 1,000,000- depends on who you ask.

    I do think 1 million is within the realm of possibility and perhaps even probably given this was a decades-long genocide.

    Profile photo for Zack Lu
    Zack Lu
    Fri
    Can we stop using the word “genocide” when it doesn’t apply at all?
    Alex, given your knowledge base, I think we’re well beyond the “mass
    murder = genocide” meme, right?

    Cathars weren’t an ethnicity, they weren’t even a religion. This is just mundane sectarian violence. Happens fairly often with Christian and
    Muslims, you know, religion with OCD tendencies.

    Alex Mann
    Fri
    I think Genocide applies here- as do most historians.

    “Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are
    committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
    ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

    This is the definition according to the UN and scholars.

    This crusade was an attempt to eradicate the Cathars.

    Profile photo for Zack Lu
    Zack Lu
    Sun
    The UN definition is rubbish. It could be applied to literally every war
    ever fought. The first word there is “national”, this means anytime one nation kills citizens of another nation, it’s “genocide”, especially
    with the caveat of “in part”. Can you think of a single war in the last
    300 years that wouldn’t be considered “genocide” by this definition?

    What makes genocide different is that it targets people based on
    immutable characteristics, namely their DNA, their ethnicity. What do
    you think the “geno” in “genocide” refers to?

    Religious affiliation is not an immutable characteristic, it’s not in
    your DNA. People convert all the time.

    Profile photo for Alex Mann
    Alex Mann
    Sun
    Incorrect. Very few wars have had to goal to eradicate an entire people.
    In fact, I can’t really think of any. Typically conqust is the goal or
    some economic incentive.

    When the GOAL is to eradicate a group its genocide. It’s about intent
    and steps taken.

    The international definition is the definition held in the UN world
    court where you can be charged with genocide.

    Religious genocide is recognized as a form of genocide. These are the
    facts- do what you will with them.


    Zack Lu
    Sun
    Did you miss the “in part” by accident or are you pretending like it's
    not there?

    Profile photo for Alex Mann
    Alex Mann
    19h ago
    Now an attempt to eradicate a population in part is still genocide.

    Regardless- the goal was not to eradicate the Cathars “in part”. The
    goal was the eradicate every single Cathar and they practically did.

    If I start a war to kill all the White people in Alabama that is
    genocide. Now I am not killing all white people- just the ones in Alabama.

    Profile photo for Zack Lu
    Zack Lu
    16h ago
    “Now an attempt to eradicate a population in part is still genocide.”

    So… explain how not every war that every happened isn’t genocide then?
    War and battle have the objective to eradicate a part of the enemy
    population, no? Or were swords and guns designed to tickle and fire
    strongly worded letters?

    Profile photo for Alex Mann
    Alex Mann
    15h ago
    Trying to kill soldiers is just a means to control a local area. The
    intent is control of territory, not eradication.

    No- the goal of war is almost never to eradicate the population and in
    cases when it was- that was genocide.

    Besides your original point was that the Cathar massacre was not
    genocide- you relent here?

    Profile photo for Zack Lu
    Zack Lu
    15h ago
    “The intent is control of territory, not eradication.”

    So… when WWI generals planned to win the war by “bleeding the enemy white”, that was genocide then?

    How about the Vietnam War when the American objective was to kill NLF
    and NVA? Or any anti-insurgency operation for that matter?

    My point is that your UN definition of genocide is bogus.

    Genocide, with the word “geno” in the name is one and only one thing: ethnic cleansing. Your ethnicity is immutable, you can’t convert from a
    white person to a black person, but you can convert from Catharism to
    literally any other religion.

    And that’s why genocide is a grade about mass murder in the pyramid of
    evil shit: it’s targeting people based on something over which they have
    no control.

    ght to grab land, grab control, increase tax taking, enhance influence,
    degrade an opposing ruler, and similar. How would you increase your tax
    revenue if you killed all potential new taxpayers? Only when wars
    started to be faught around ideology, that's when some of them became genocides. But really not many.
    Profile photo for Adam Houck
    Adam Houck
    6h ago
    In a situation like this, I think a good way to explain the difference
    between a war and genocide to someone is to ask what happens when you surrender.

    Is a war, surrender means new rulers.

    In genocide, surrender means you will be killed.

    In a religious war, if you are given a chance to convert, it is still a genocide since it is an attempt to exterminate a belief system on the
    pain of death.

    The only thing that I can find confusing is the cultural aspect of the definition. For example, in the United States and Canada there was an
    attempt to remove children from native families and make the native
    culture die out by controlling the education of those children. Now,
    this was not about exterminating the people (though many did die) but
    making those people forget their history, language, religion and customs.

    This is considered a genocide though sometimes it is hard to spot/define
    when there is a lack of mass graves.

    Profile photo for Nagy Zoli
    Nagy Zoli
    Sun
    Bit of a pointless argument, as one should apply the period values and
    rules when evaluating a historical event, to correctly grasp the
    significance and consequences. Meaning it is wrong to apply a 1945
    definition and law to a 1209 event, as it would 100% bring you to the
    wrong conclusions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)