Cathar Council of St. Felix-de-Caraman
(now called St. St.-Felix-Lauragais)
The St. Felix Document

View near St. Felix-Lauragais

This Cathar council is believed to have been held in the town of St.-Felix-de-Caraman now called St.-Felix-Lauragais in c.1167 C.E. In order to settle issues of regarding the proper sanctity of Cathar Hierarchy and to settle issues arising from possible boundary disputes between different Cathar communities. Our sole source for the details or even the fact of such a council is from Guillaume Besse, who in a book he published printed a document, in Latin, supposed to be a précis and summary of what happened and what was decided at said council.1 The authenticity of the document has been disputed ever since, especially since the alleged original that Besse allegedly copied has never been found since. The fact that Besse forged a number of documents in his book hasn’t helped.

View of St. Felix-Lauragais

Despite the problems with Besse has a source the consensus seems to be that the document is authentic although possibly Besse muddled it when copying from the original. It appears that this document is in fact fragments of three documents put together of several meeting of the Cathar hierarchy. The first being a report of the consolamentums performed by Nicetas. The second being part of a sermon by Nicetas and the third being an agreement concerning boundaries between different Cathar Churches in Southern France.2 In 1999 there was a conference in Nice which came down heavily on the side of the authenticity of the document and Council.3

View of the Castle of St. Felix Lauragais
The document goes has follows:

In the month of May in the year of the Lord's incarnation 1167:4 at that the Church of Toulouse brought papa Niquinta5 to the castle of and a great multitude of the men and women of the Church of Toulouse and of the other neighbouring Churches gathered there to receive the consolamentum6 which the lord papa7 Niquinta began to administer. Afterwards Robert of Spernone, Bishop of the Church of the French,8 came with his council; and also Mark of Lombardy came with his council; and Sicard Cellarier, Bishop of the Church of Albi, came with, his council, and Bernard the Catalan came with the council of the church of Carcassonne; and the council of the Church of Agen was also present. And since they were all gathered there in such numbers, the men of the Church of Toulouse wished to have a bishop, and chose Bernard Raymond; and likewise Bernard the Catalan and the Church of Carcassonne, being requested and required to do so by the Church of Toulouse, and on the advice and with the agreement and permission of the lord Sicard Cellarier, chose Gerald Mercier; and the men of Agen chose Raymond de Casals. After that Robert d' Espernone received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop by the lord papa Niquinta, so that he might be Bishop of the Church of the French; likewise Sicard Cellarier received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop, so that he might be Bishop of the Church of Albi. In the same way Mark received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop, so that he might be Bishop of the Church of Lombardy; likewise Bernard Raymond received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop, so that he might be bishop of the Church of Toulouse; and likewise Gerald Mercier received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop, so that he might be Bishop of the Church of Carcassonne; likewise Raymond de Casals received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop, so that he might be Bishop of the Church of Agen.

After this papa Niquinta addressed the Church of Toulouse: “You have asked me to tell you whether the customs of the primitive Churches were burdensome or light, and so let me tell you that the seven Churches of Asia9 were separated from each other by boundaries, and as a result none of them did anything to the detriment of any of the others. And the Churches of Rome and Dragometia and Melenguia and Bulgaria and Dalmatia10 are separated by boundaries from each other and none of them does anything to the detriment of any of the others, and so they are at peace with each other. You should do the same”11

The charter or the official report of conciliation and demarcation follows.

The Church of Toulouse chooses Bernard Raimond, Guillaume Garsias, Ermengaud de Forest, Raimond de Baimiac, Guilabert de Bonvilar, Bernard Guilhem Contor, Bernard Guilhem Bonnerville and Bertrand d'Avignont, to define its territory. The Church of Carcassonne chooses Guiraud Mercier, Bernard Cathala, Gregoire, Pierre Caldermas, Raimond Pons, Bertrand de Mouly, Martin de la Salle et Raimond Guibert, as divisors of the church of Carcassonne. So being joined together in council and having deliberated, they said that Church of Toulouse and Church of Carcassonne would be divided up according to the [Catholic] bishoprics.

So that the bishopric of Toulouse and archbishopric of Narbonne are separated in two places, with the bishopric of Carcassonne at St. Pons were the mountain, comes between the castle of Cabaret and that of Hautpoul, to the boundary between the castles of Sissac and of Verdun, passes between Montreal and Fanjeaux the boundary between the other Bishoprics, similarly, at the boundary of Razes just as far as Lerida: that is the territory that is in the care and administration of the church of Toulouse.The church of Carcassonne as herein created has in its capacity and administration all the Bishopric of Carcassonne and Archbishopric of Narbonne and the remainder of the territories boundaries are right to the sea as far as Lerida. So That these churches are given boundaries as been said above, so that they will have peace and concord between them and none will do anything against the rights of the other.

Those listed here are witnesses and guarantors of this: Bernard Raimond, Guillaume Garcias, Ermengaud Forest, Raimond de Baimiac, Guilabert de Bonvilar, Bernard Guihem Contor, Bernard Guilhem Bonneville and Bertrand d'Avignont.

For the Church of Carcassonne: Guiraud Mercier, Bernard Cathala, Gregoire, Pierre Caldemas, Raimond Pons, Bertrand de Mouly, Martin de la Salle and Raimond Guibert.

All organized, accepted and said to Ermengaud de Forest to write and put into effect for the Church Toulouse similarly it is organized, accepted and said to Pierre Bernard to write and put into effect for the Church of Carcassonne and thus it was made and carried out.

Monseigneur Pierre Isarn made this copy of an old charter having the power to set boundaries of the various Churches that he wrote in a better hand the Monday the 14th of August in the year [1167?].

In the year 1232 of the incarnation of our lord. Pierre Poullain12 wrote all that is here accordingly as requested and ordered.13

A Medieval Building in St. Felix Lauragais

From what evidence we do have it appears that before the Council of St. Felix-de-Caraman the Cathars of southern France accepted a doctrine of mitigated dualism, in which evil existed since the fall of man into original sin and that sooner or later good would destroy evil. In this theology the material world was the creation of a lesser being, i.e., Satan, than God who would be eventually defeated. In effect Satan had created the material world, after his rebellion against God had failed, and also created Adam and Eve by imprisoning light in the matter he had created. Niquinta (Nicetas) seems to have brought over from Constantinople the more radical dualism of the church of Dragometia which postulated the existence for all time of two eternal principles, aspects, for clarity we can call them "Light" and "Dark" that are now unfortunately mixed up and that the goal of Light mixed up with matter a creation of the Dark was to free itself from matter so it could reunite with light completely and without contamination from Dark created matter. Eventually all Light would be free of matter and Dark completely separated from Light. Another matter seems to have been the validity of the consolamentum of various members of the Cathar hierarchy so that Niquinta (Nicetas) had to redo the ritual to make it valid again. Niquinta (Nicetas) had already visited Italy were he had redone various consolamentums and had introduced radical dualism.14 An Italian source written about 1200 C.E., says as follows:

In the early days, when the heresy of the Cathars began to increase in Lombardy, they first had a certain bishop named Mark, under whose rule all the Lombard, Tuscan and Trevisan [heretics] were governed. Mark was consecrated in the sect of Bulgaria. Then came to Lombardy from Constantinople a man called Papa Nicheta, who began to declaim against the Bulgarian consecration which Mark had received. This raised doubts in the minds of Bishop Mark and his followers; he gave up the Bulgarian consecration and accepted, at the hand of Nicheta himself, that of Drugunthia, and in this sect of Drugunthia he and all his associates remained for some time.15

Afterwards several of the Italian Cathar churches reverted to mitigated dualism although it appears that the Cathars of southern France remained radical dualists. The final issue seems to have been discord between the Cathar Churches in Southern France over jurisdiction and boundaries which Niquinta (Nicetas) helped to settle at this council.16

In the end the Cathars were crushed and only a scattering of documents like this one gives us much insight into their world.

View from St. Felix Lauragais

1. Besse, Guillaume, Histoire des ducs, marquis et comtes de Narbonne, Paris, 1660, pp, 483-486.

2. See Lambert, Malcolm, The Cathars, Blackwell Pub. Ltd., Oxford, 1998, pp. 45-59, & “The Cathar Council of S. Felix Reconsidered”, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, v. 48, 1978, pp. 23-53, Roquebert, Michel, Histoire des cathares, Perrin, Paris, 1999, pp. 56-64, Moore, R. I., The Origins of European Dissent, 2d edition, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1985, pp. 212-217, Barber, Malcolm, The Cathars, Longman, Toronto, 2000, pp. 71-73.

3. see O’Shea, Stephen, The Perfect Heresy, Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver, 2000, p. 272.

4. The date has been disputed on the grounds that it’s in error and the Council took place in the 1170’s. See also Moore above.

5. Niquinta or Nicetas seems to have been head of the Dualist, Dragometia, Church in Constantinople.

6. The ceremony of laying on of hands that consecrated someone into the Cathar or Dualist hierarchy by a sort of pasting down of sanctity.

7. “Papa” in the eastern Greek Orthodox faith simply means “Priest”; it does not have in any sense here the connotation of “Pope”.

8. Virtually nothing is known of this Church although there was some inquisitorial action against it in the late 12th and early 13th century. It seems to never have acquired the prominence of the Cathar Church in the South of France. See Lambert, pp. 122-125.

9. A Reference to St. Paul’s letters and the Book of Revelations that talk about 7 Churches in Asia Minor.

10. The Churches mentioned here apparently are all Dualist. The Church of Rome may be some sort of miscopying of the name of an Italian Dualist Church. Bulgaria, Dalmatia and Melenguia are Dualist Churches who seemed to have practiced a mitigated Dualism. Dragometia apparently practiced a radical Dualism and was the Church Niquinta was representing. Mitigated Dualism argued that God created the world and the conflict between light and dark had only existed since the fall. Radical Dualism believed that two forces / principles had existed from the beginning and would exist for eternity.

11. This part of the document to "The charter or the official report of conciliation and demarcation follows”, is from Hamilton, Janet & Hamilton, Bernard, Christian Dualist Heresies, in the Byzantine World, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1998, pp. 251-252. Unfortunately it doesn't contain the last half of the document. A full translation of the whole text into English is in Peters, Edward, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, University of Pennsylvania Press, New York, 1980, pp. 121-123.

12. This gloss is from a later time, 1232 / 33, when apparently the document was recopied. Pierre Poullain was the Cathar Bishop of Carcassonne.

13. This part is a translation from the French by Pierre Cloutier. The French text translated is from Duvernoy, Jean, L'Histoire des Cathares, Privat, Toulouse, 1979, pp. 217-218. For the full text in English see Peters, above in Footnote 11.

14. Lambert, pp. 45-59, 158-170, Runciman, Steven, The Medieval Manichee, The Viking Press, New York, 1961, pp. 72-77, 122-127, O'Shea, pp. 17-31, Moore, pp. 197-240, Barber, pp. 81-104, Oldenbourg, Zoe, Massacre at Montsegur, Phoenix Press, London, 1961, pp. 32-44, Moore, R.I., The Birth of Popular Heresy, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1995, pp. 122-127, 132-154, Wakefield, Walter L., Evans, Austin P., Heresies of the Middle Ages, Columbia University Press, New York, 1969, Item 23, pp. 160-167.

15. Wakefield, pp. 160-161.

16. See Footnote 14.

Pierre Cloutier

April 6, 1917

This is not a date that most people today remember but it is likely to be remembered has the most important date and event of the twentieth century. It was the day on which the United States declared war on the Central Powers in World War One and basically decided that Germany and her allies would lose, unless they very quickly won. Germany had in effect only a little over a year to achieve this result otherwise she was doomed to lose.

So just how did that epoch making event occur? In a few words it was the result of truly awesome stupidity, on the part of certain German leaders, directly related to their ignoring of Clauswitz’s dictum that war is a political tool and instead they subordinated politics to military “necessity”.

On February first 1917 the Kaiser as advised by his chief military advisers, who were in effect rulers of Germany, Hindenburg and Ludendorff, launched a campaign of unrestricted submarine campaign against Allied and neutral shipping. This was done despite knowledge that this would almost certainly get the United States in the war against Germany and her allies. So why was it done?

Hindenburg (Left) Ludendorff (Right)

At the time Britain was blockading Germany and her allies in an attempt to deprive Germany and her allies of essential materials. This caused significant distress and hunger in Germany and her allies and led to casting about for a way to retaliate, or counter blockade Britain.

Germany had tried at various times to use U-Boats to take / sink ships that were bringing goods to England during the early part of the war. There had even been various stabs at unrestricted submarine warfare, which led to such disasters as the sinking of the Lusitania, in which over 1100 people died including more than 100 Americans. This incident came close to starting a war between America and Germany and the Germans brought this experiment to an end.

Essentially submarine attacks on ships were a continuation of the old guerre de course, or privatering that European powers had engaged against each other during their past wars. In this case the u-boats were rather vulnerable to being rammed, or blown out of the water if they stuck to the recognized practice of stopping ships and searching them and enabling the crews to escape and then sinking them. This was highly dangerous. With torpedoes and deck guns there was, not surprisingly, a tendency to simply blow the ship out of the water without stopping it. Not only did stopping ships put the u-boat at risk but taking the time to search a ship put the u-boat at risk of being found in the meantime and sunk.

World War I U-Boat

Added to this was the problem that neutral vessels, especially American ships were sending war material to Britain and the other allied powers. Sinking such vessels, especially if you killed a lot of passengers at the same time, ran the risk of infuriating the neutral involved. In the case of the United States this involved infuriating a great industrial / economic power.

The U.S. was in the meantime doing excellent business with the Allied powers in terms of munitions and raw materials for war production. Also U.S. financial institutions played an important role in upholding allied finances and credit.

Not surprisingly the Germans were infuriated both by the Allied blockade and by the fact that America was aiding the allies in many ways. America was officially neutral and certainly President Woodrow Wilson made all the right noises about trying to arrange a sort of peace deal and was apparently fully sincere in wanting peace.

By then it was clear that if anything the Americans were pro-Allied, by reason of cultural and historical ties to Britain, and out of self interest. Although it must be emphasized the U.S. government and people did not want to be involved in a war. And frankly the American government wanted the war to end before it possibly interfered with American interests. A peace that in effect returned things more or less to the situation of early August 1914 before the war started was one that the American government found most appealing.

Americans were emerging only recently from a long term foreign policy direction of trying to isolate themselves from the politics and struggles and internal competitions of the European great powers. Traditionally American policy had concentrated on issues involving the Western Hemisphere with the proviso that America would not interfere with the great European powers if she was left alone in the Western Hemisphere. That had begun to change with such developments has the Spanish American War, which led to the conquest of the Philippines and acquiring of an American colonial empire. Further developments such has the acquiring of the Panama Canal Zone and the building of the Panama Canal, (opened 1914) also signaled a change indicating the emergence of the United States as a world power. In 1905 Theodore Roosevelt mediated the end of the Russian / Japanese war. All this signaled that the U.S. had arrived as a major player on the world scene.

Despite the above America was still profoundly leery of foreign entanglements and isolationism was a powerful force in the United States. Interestingly in the 1916 Presidential elections the main slogan of Woodrow Wilson’s campaign was “He kept us out of war!” Despite the fact that, if anything, Americans in general and Wilson in particular favored the Allied powers America did not want to be involved in the war. Given this how did it happen?

Woodrow Wilson

Well it was because America was heavily trading with the Allied powers, in munitions and raw materials and trade in other items. Trade with the Central Powers was virtually impossible due to the British blockade, so that there did not emerge a interest group in favor of keeping up trade with the Central Powers but there did emerge a interest group in favor of unimpeded trade with the Allied powers, which was proving to be highly beneficial to U.S., financial, trade and manufacturing interests. Further there was the simple fact that attacks on U.S. ships were obviously direct threats to the lives of U.S. citizens. Obviously attacks on British ships could be explained and justified on the grounds that British ships were ships of an enemy of Germany and therefore legitimate targets. However what about neutral vessels that were importing into Britain war material? Were they not targets? Here things get dicey if only because such vessels were from powers not at war with Germany and hence not real targets, but they did contain munitions and war material! The further complication that the rules governing such transactions in past wars involving European powers allowed the stopping and searching of neutral vessels bound for belligerent ports, especially with war material and allowed for confiscation of cargoes etc., also specified that crews would be saved and ships sunk only under very rigid circumstances. The existence of deck guns and torpedoes which allowed ships to be sunk on sight were not envisioned by these rules, neither was the fact that the “privateers” in this war, (u-boats), being so vulnerable to being sunk, made sinking ships on sight very tempting. The result was a series of mishaps and diplomatic disasters.

The Lusitania crisis was a prime example. This started after the Germans had declared an unrestricted submarine campaign in the waters around the British Isles. Due to a series of mistakes involving what the Germans thought was the prime purpose of the Lusitania. The ship was sunk by torpedo and over a thousand passengers were killed, including over 100 Americans. The idiocy of large elements of the German press in celebrating this “achievement” didn’t help. It nearly resulted in war between Germany and the U.S. It appears that the Lusitania was carrying war material, which was frankly in violation of the then current war rules. This fact and the fact that Germany rescinded the unrestricted campaign and U.S. didn’t want war prevented war from happening then.

Given the fact that the United States was by 1900 was the greatest industrial power on the planet, with huge financial, trade and raw material resources etc; war with her was an obviously iffy proposition to be engaged in only if there was little choice. Further by 1900 the United States had a larger population than any European power, with the exception of Russia. In effect the United States was second only to the British Empire in terms of overall power world wide. The British Empire was a fairly ramshackle affair that had great difficulty using / concentrating it's power in any one particular area, so that its effective power was less than adding up its resources, population would indicate. It was just common sense not to want war with the U.S.

Here however is where human idiocy / stupidity enters the picture. Simply a look at basic U.S. figures of population, industrial output etc., would have made it clear to any German statesmen that however annoying American trade during wartime with the Allied powers was, under no circumstances should Germany do anything to provoke America into a war. One should never underestimate the power of wishful thinking and sheer dumbness however. Despite the facts Germany's leaders stupidly did in fact provoke the United States into a war! It went as follows.

By the early winter of 1916 the war had entered its third year of bloody stalemate. Millions of soldiers on both sides were dead. Economies were straining at the end of their tether and Germany was going through a period of severe shortages due to the blockade, of food and other materials. The population was angry, and the generals were seeking a way out of the stalemate; for a quick easy solution. The desire to strike back at Britain was very strong so that as the winter went on pressure built up to strike at Britain through a counter blockade enforced by unrestricted submarine warfare.

Here is where the stupidity came into it. The fact is anger and rage are not conducive to clear thinking in terms of policy goals and how to achieve them, and in this case the various German generals, specifically Ludendorff and Hindenburg, who by this time had established what was in effect a Military Dictatorship over Germany dedicated to winning the war, had come to believe that Britain must be driven out the war by the quickest means possible. So various studies had been done and these studies had determined that sinking 800,000 tons of shipping per month for a period of 6 months would reduce Britain to famine and starve Britain of war material. So that Britain would be driven out the war in 6 months. The military studies done by the various elements of the German armed forces, especially the Naval department were characterized by distortion and a huge amount of wishful thinking and stunning over the top optimism of the prospects of unrestricted submarine warfare. Individuals like Admiral Tirpitz pushed for unrestricted submarine warfare with blind optimism and a cavalier disregard for alternatives or the possibility of failure.

In fact it should have been obvious that failure was not simply a distinct possibility it was a virtual certainty. The U-boats of the First World War had very slow underwater speeds, their torpedoes were very poor and their ability to coordinate operations with other U-boats virtually non-existent. Thus the vast majority of ships sunk by U-boats in this war were sunk by the deck guns of U-boats; and the vast majority of ships sunk were sailing alone. Given their technical limitations their ability to damage ships sailing in convoy was very limited. It should have been obvious that should the British convoy ships unrestricted submarine warfare would fail. A few escort or one escort ship per convoy would be enough to sink or drive off U-boats the great majority of time. This was both obvious and clear at the time. Further the time table for this too work was absurdly optimistic even if it had worked.1

At the same time it was clear by the fall of 1916 that Russia was in the process of internal collapse. The possibility of Russia falling apart or leaving the war was enormous, and in fact in February 1917 a popular insurrection overthrew the Tsarist regime and Russia’s ability to prosecute the war already visibly declining disintegrated further. This would give Germany the prospect of transferring troops etc., to the western front and enable them to either attack in an effort to gain victory or to secure a favorable peace.

So given the facts above why under those circumstances did the leaders of Germany embark on this foolish venture? To add America has their enemy just when Russia was collapsing meant replacing one enemy with a far more powerful enemy. The simple fact is many of the German leaders were prey to delusions. The fact that many in the German government thought that America's entry on the side of the Allies inevitable, if only for the Americans to help recover the huge sums they had loaned to the allies, made many people in the German government think that if America entered the war sooner rather than later it would make little difference. Of course this was nonsense the sensible policy would have been to put off American entry into the war has long as possible to the point where American help to the allies would have made no difference. Another delusion was that submarine warfare would work, ignoring the skeptics who pointed out the obvious problems. That American intervention would only add more supplies / financial aid to the Allied war effort. That any American expeditionary force would be small and so forth. In other words a stew of wishful thinking. Further America was simply underestimated and Ludendorff and Hindenburg remained quite happily ignorant of American economic power. It was pointed out that the American army was by European standards absurdly small, but ignored that given American economic power a huge Army could be created in less than two years. It was claimed that U-boats would sink troop ships and therefore prevent any substantial number of troops coming over the Atlantic. These fantasies, which is what they were, clouded clear thinking it was what Ludendorff, Hindenburg and their cortege wanted to hear so they heard it.2

The fact that since the war began the British Admiralty, in a fit of bull headed idiocy had utterly refused to institute convoys for various empty headed reasons had helped to reinforce German delusions about the efficiency of submarine warfare. In fact only if the British refused to institute convoys did the plan have even a ghost of a chance of working and frankly counting on the British being so stupid to the bitter end was foolish in the extreme. The fact that Lloyd George, who became British Prime Minister in 1917, was pressing for adoption of convoys made adoption a virtual certainty. Faced with this constellation of circumstances i.e., Russia leaving the war, unrestricted submarine warfare almost certainly to fail, and the U.S. entering the war if unrestricted submarine warfare was declared. The sensible option would have been not to do so but to sit tight.

The results were predictable, the fact that Germany allowed certain of their diplomats to make foolish moves like encouraging Mexico to attack the United States and offering an alliance with Mexico directed against the United States were mere infuriating icing on the cake. The United States simply did not want war with Germany but with great foolishness German leaders infuriated the U.S. government, citizens and businesses, (by trying to end their profitable trade with the Allied powers). It is by any standards one of the greatest examples of plain stupid policy making in world history.

The effects shaped the world we have today, even more than the Russian Revolution. America entered the war. Britain adopted the convoy system. Submarine warfare, despite the idiotic reluctance of the British Admiralty to adopt convoys, didn’t even come close to driving Britain out of the war.3 It simply failed. Replacing America with Russia ensured allied victory. More than 2 million American troops were sent to Europe and less than 50 were killed by U-boat attacks. The U-boats proved spectacularly ineffective in attacking convoys or sinking troop ships. Germany’s had to attack in the west before American troops arrived en mass. The chances of the attack working were not good and frankly any chance of Germany victory had evaporated by June 1918 and any reasonable chance of German victory had probably evaporated by the time the first German western offensive was launched in March 1918.

After the war both Hindenburg and Ludendorff helped to manufacture the stab in the back legend i.e., that politicians, liberals, Socialists etc., had betrayed Germany and caused the loss of the war. This was nonsense, it was their own single minded and foolish choices has military men that lost Germany the war, but blaming the politicians who had to clean up the mess they created was more psychologically satisfying I guess. This was part of a wholesale campaign by various people within German society to undermine the Weimer Republic. Thus did the men who lost the war for Germany help pave the way for Hitler.

In world terms this marked the establishment of the United States has the worlds predominant power, in finance, trade, culture etc., a dominance that only recently in a very Americanized world has began to fade. It appears that Communism for example, was mainly a bump that disguised the predominant fact of the twentieth century, the large scale westernization of the world through the medium of American power and culture.

And that is why April 6, 1917 is so important.

1. Blair, Clay, Hitler’s U-Boat War: The Hunters, 1939-1942, Modern Library, New York, 1996, pp. 9-22. This is a brief section that briefly surveys German U-Boats in World War I.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

Books consulted.

Fuller, J.F.C., A Military History of the Western World, vol. 3, Da Capo, New York, 1956, pp. 265-275.

Stone, Norman, Europe Transformed 1878-1919, Fontana Books, London, 1983, pp. 355-358.

Keegan, John, The First World War, Vintage Canada, Toronto, 1998, pp. 350-360.

Epstein, Klaus, Gerhard Ritter and the First World War, in The Origins of the First World War, Ed. Koch, H. W., Taplinger Pub. Co., New York, 1972, pp. 298-303.

Zechlin, Egmont, Cabinet versus Economic Warfare in Germany, in Koch, pp. 206-214.

Craig, Gordon A., Germany 1866-1945, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978, pp. 378-390.

Hart, Liddell, History of the First World War, Pan Books Ltd., London, 1934, pp. 214-216, 308-312.

Pierre Cloutier

Life of K'inich Pacal I (the Great) of Lakam-Ha (Palenque)

Pacal's name in Glyphic form

603 - 683 C.E.

March 26, 603 C.E.

Pacal I was born on this date, during the reign of his great-grandmother Incal. his parents were Zak-Kuk the daughter of Incal's younger son Pacal and Kan-B'alam-Mo' a member of an important family that had served the dynasty for generations. Pacal I was named Pacal in honor of his grandfather Pacal. The circumstances of his birth were not auspicious.

Sculptured Head of Pacal has a young man

A few years earlier on April 21, 599 C.E.

The city is been sacked by Kalak'mul (Kan - meaning Snake) the leader of an enemy alliance that fought an alliance headed by Tikal (Mutul - meaning bundle of hair) that Palenque (Lakam-Ha - meaning big water) was a member of. His great-grandmother had came to throne in disastrous circumstances and had, had great difficulty in holding things together. Even the very fact of her accession was unusual and in the normal course of things Pacal I becoming king was not very likely given that his grandfather Pacal could have other sons and Ac-Kan, Incal's eldest son was also before him.

Map of the Mayan Area

November 7, 604 C.E.

Incal died on this date. This death marked the beginning of a period of crisis during which things went from bad to worst for the kingdom and dynasty.

January 4, 605 C.E.

Ac-Kan formally accedes to throne on this day. During this year or the next one Bonampak, an ally of Kalak'mul (Kan) successfully raids Lakam-Ha, (Palenque). Apparently Ac-Kan has far less success than his mother, Incal, in holding the kingdom together.

April 11, 611 C.E.

Kalak'mul (Kan) in alliance with various city states like Tonina and Pomona, sacks Lakam-Ha (Palenque) even more thoroughly than the last time on this date. Apparently several members of the royal family are killed and/or captured and sacrificed. Palenque (Lakam-Ha) is humiliated and forced to pay tribute. In subsequent years Lakam-Ha is raided and humiliated again and again.

March 9, 612 C.E.

Pacal, Pacal I's grandfather dies suddenly and probably violently on this date. Pacal has no surviving sons and his heir is probably his daughter Zak-Kuk. Pacal I now becomes a contender for the throne but only if his uncle Ac-Kan should die without children then the heir will be Pacal I's mother Zak-Kuk.

August 11, 612 C.E.

Ac-Kan dies on this date. again, like his brother Pacal, rather suddenly and possibly violently as Palenque's enemies close in to finish off the royal family.

October 12, 612 C.E.

Muwaan Mat accedes to the throne on this date. possibly actually Zak-Kuk, Pacal's mother who takes the throne like her grand mother Incal, or the person is an unknown male relative or entirely fictive. (To symbolize retrospectively a new beginning.) Whoever it is, accedes to the throne in difficult circumstances. Only in this case they may have been even more serious than before. The city is badly damaged. The royal family decimated so that Zak-Kuk was likely the only adult member left. The kingdom is weak, and her enemies many. It is uncertain but it appears that Zak-Kuk was the power behind the throne at this time if she was not reigning herself.

July 29, 615 C.E.

On this date Pacal was crowned, at the age of 12, by his mother Zak Kuk, K'inich, ruler of the kingdom of Bak, (meaning bone), in the city of Lakham-Ha (Palenque). Years later Pacal has carved a plaque commemorating the event. The plaque was fixed into a wall of the palace and all future rulers of Bak were crowned and enthroned underneath it. After possibly ruling alone for 2 1/2 years Zak-Kuk makes sure her son will rule by crowning him in her lifetime. At the same time she deliberately leaves her own position ambiguous. The kingdom is weak and Zak-Kuk makes sure her position remains ambiguous.

The Plaque of Zak-Kuk crowning Pacal I

615 - 640 C.E.

This period is what amounts to the joint reign of Pacal I and his mother Zak-Kuk. during this period Pacal erects no monuments and records no known wars. Inscriptions at Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) and other sites do not record any disasters happening to the kingdom of Bak. It seems safe to conclude that Zak-Kuk was successful in keeping things together and beginning the process of recovery of the kingdom. Pacal later in his reign records that his mother was unable to make the proper sacrifices because the gods were damaged.

?March 22, 626 C.E.

On this date Pacal marries lady Ahpo-Hel. Pacal is 22 years old and will turn 23 on March 26, 626 C.E., the marriage, at least politically, is a great success. Since Pacal would record this event has one of the 5 most significant events of his reign it seems safe to conclude that lady Ahpo-Hel came from a significant family and city.

January 27, 633 C.E.

On this date Zak-Kuk celebrates a katun, (twenty year) anniversary. This anniversary also probably celebrates the twenty, plus a few months since she took power.

May 23, 635 C.E.

On this date, Kan B'alam II was born to Pacal and lady Ahpo-Hel. This son would eventually follow Pacal as king of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) in 683 C.E. It is possible that Pacal had sons born before Kan B'alam who did not survive their father. Pacal is 32 years old.

September 12, 640 C.E.

Pacal becomes sole ruler of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) on this date, when his mother Zak-Kuk dies. Pacal is now well established as ruler because since his mother's possible accession to the throne there has been peace and stability and gradual recovery. However little if any building activity has been done, and Lakam-Ha still has many dangerous enemies. Pacal is 37 years old.

Map of Downtown Lakam-Ha (Palenque)

June 17, 641 C.E.

On this date Pacal holds a ritual and ceremony to officially designate his son, Kan B'alam II, age 6, his heir. This further solidifies Pacal's position and the security of the dynasty.

January 1, 643 C.E.

Kan-B'alam-Mo', Pacal's father dies, on this date. With his fathers death the last strings of parental control are removed.

644 C.E.

Pacal begins a war with the nearby city of Tortuguero. This is Pacal's first major war. Tortuguero is an ally of Kalak'mul (Kan) and a enemy of Palenque (Lakam-Ha) and Palenque's ally Tikal, (Mutul).

November 5, 644 C.E.

On this date, Kan-Xul II was born to Pacal and lady Ahpo-Hel. This son would eventually follow his older brother Kan B'alam II as king of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) in 702 C.E. It is possible that Pacal had other sons who did not survive their father.

January 31, 645 C.E.

Pacal sacks a city, perhaps an ally of Tortuguero. This is Pacal's first great military achievement. The name of the city is unknown but Pacal extends his control into the east of his kingdom.

647 C.E.

Pacal dedicates his first great building project, the temple Olividado. This temple is of a radically different design from earlier ones, with a double-galleried hall, much thinner walls than usual, and many doors and vaults. This temple apparently celebrated the rival of the power and prestige of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha).

?November 18-25, 649 C.E.

Pacal takes and sacks Tortuguero.The eastern frontier of the kingdom is now stabilized. Pacal turn his attention to the western frontier of the kingdom.

April 19, 653 C.E.

Pacal performs a ritual dance to appease the gods and ensure the safety of Lakam-Ha, (Palenque).

November 654 C.E.

Dedication of the subterrean passages below house E in the Palace.

September 10, 655 C.E.

An event of some importance occurs involving Pacal's wars in the west. The exact nature of the event is not known.

650-658 C.E.

Pacal constructs the Temple of the Count, and houses, E, B, in the palace. The architecture continues to be innovative and continues to indicate the revival of Palenque (Lakam-Ha).

August 7, 659 C.E.

Pacal captures Nuun Ujol Chahk king of Santa Elena. Six days later this king and his lieutenants are presented at Palenque (Lakham-Ha).

August 16, 659 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak king of Tikal (Mutul) and ally of Pacal visits him in Lakam-Ha. Nun-Bak-Chak had been driven out of Mutul by an alliance of Kalak'mul and Dos Pilas. The visit was probably both a high level meeting to discuss strategy and an affirmation of Pacal's support for the alliance between Lakam-Ha and Mutul. The very fact that Pacal would thus defy Kalak'mul, which had twice taken Lakam-Ha in 60 years, indicates the significant revival of Lakam-Ha's fortunes. Also it indicates very clearly Pacal's continuation of the long-standing alliance with Mutul. This long-standing conflict was by now at least a century old. The conflict would carry on long after Pacal's death. This event was considered by Pacal one of the most important events in his life and he made sure it was prominently recorded. Pacal is 56 years old.

659 C.E.

Pacal dedicates house C in the palace. This is the last of Pacal's construction work until close to his death.

662 C.E.

Several unknown prisoners are displayed at this time by Pacal.

662 C.E.

Pacal appoints a nobelman Aj Sul to th position of Yajawk'ahk (Lord of Fire), probably a military position.

c.664 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak king of Tikal (Mutul) regains control of Mutul. Apparently Pacal has a hand in this. The reestablishment of Nun-Bak-Chak probably removes for the time being any worries about Kalak'mul

c.672 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak takes Dos-Pilas with the assistance of his allies including Lakam-Ha (Palenque). It is possible Pacal was there when the city was taken.

November 16, 672 C.E.

Lady Ahpo-Hel wife of Pacal and mother of two future kings, Kan B'alam II & Kan-Xul II, dies on this day. Ahpo-Hel and Pacal had been married 46 years. This event is also prominently recorded by Pacal. Pacal is now 69 years old and probably feeling his age.

October 20, 675 C.E.

Pacal performs a ritual associated with the creation of this universe and the mayan hero twins. This was a ritual to insure the safety of both the dynasty and the kingdom.

677 C.E.

Kalak'mul and the deposed king of Dos Pilas, Balah-Kan K'wail retake Dos Pilas. This a considerable set back for the alliance headed by Tikal (Mutul). Whether or not Pacal is involved in this defeat is not known.

679 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak king of Tikal, (Mutul) is captured and sacrificed by Balah-Kan K'wail king of Dos Pilas. This is a major disaster for the alliance. We do not know if Pacal was involved. It is very likely that this disaster involving a man that Pacal knew personally would have shaken Pacal. Also it would seem that this would create a serious threat to Pacal and his kingdom. Amazingly Pacal and his kingdom escape unscathed from the disaster. How? We do not know.

January 26, 679 C.E.

Pacal organizes and lays out the succession among his three sons.

c. 680-683 C.E.

Pacal builds the Temple of the Inscriptions to honor the gods and inside the temple, at its base, builds a truly remarkable tomb. Pacal records in the tomb two "king" lists and a third in the temple on the top of the pyramid. Pacal's son Chan Bahlam II finishes the temple and dedicates it on july 6, 690 C.E. The temple itself with its stucco carvings, stone sculpture, beautiful and architecture, is considered by many the most beautiful building ever built by the Mayans. The world would first see Pacal from the beautiful image of him on the incredible sarcophagus lid found in the tomb when it was opened by Ruz in 1952.

Temple of the Inscriptions

August 31, 683 C.E.

Pacal dies, apparently suddenly, at the age of 80. Pacal has reigned 68 years. Shortly after he dies he is buried in the Temple of the Inscriptions. His son Kan B'alam II formally succeeds him on January 10, 684 C.E. It is said that the emperor Augustus when he lay dying asked "have I conducted myself well in this farce called life?". The historian Suetonius said "yes". If Pacal had been asked this question, the reply would have been the same.

Sarcophagus of Pacal I

The Sources for this life are:

Schele, Linda, Wars of Pacal, on September 29th 1995 at the Palenque Round Table, Palenque Mexico. Notes from the talk Here.

Martin, Simon, Grube, Nikolai, Chronicle of the Mayan Kings and Queens, 2nd edition, Thames and Hudson, London 2008, pp. 155-175.

Schele, Linda, Mathews, Peter, The Code of Kings, Touchstone, New York, 1998, pp. 95-132.

Schele, Linda, Freidel, David, A Forest of Kings, William Morrow and Company Inc., New York, 1990. pp. 216-261.

Stuart, David & Stuart, George, Palenque, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008, pp. 147-184.

Mathews, Peter, Who’s Who in the Classic Maya World - K'inich Janab' Pakal I, From the FAMSI website Here.

Pierre Cloutier

Reference "Bites"

Scene After the Battle of Waterloo

Large reference works that try to cover a particular area over a long period of time have a big task before them in terms of trying to be accurate everywhere. It’s a tall order and sometimes the effort falls flat in places. Here I’ll examine one particular book. In this case The Encyclopedia of Military History.1

The book contains some errors of fact and some errors of interpretation that illustrate the pitfalls in relying on such omnibus works. As the title suggests the work is an encyclopedic look at world wide military history arranged chronologically. It contains a great deal of useful and interesting material unfortunately it also contains misinformation and error.

For example:

Abel er-Rahman led a Moslem army of unknown strength (probably about 50,000) into Aquitaine. slipping past the western flank of the Pyrenees at Irun.2

Well our authors should have quit when they were ahead with “unknown strength”, the figure is absurd for a raiding, cavalry army of that time period 5,000 or less is more reasonable.3 Simply put finding fodder for such a horde of horses would have impossible at that place and time. The passage then goes on to talk about it being a decisive battle of the world, at Poitiers. One of the usual “Western” army defeats “Oriental” horde type battles that are a perennial of western historical literature since the Greeks fought the Persians. The implication being that somehow the “Oriental” horde, (which always hugely outnumbers the gallant “Western” army), represents the forces of darkness.

Contemporary accounts would seem to indicate that it was the defeat of a large raiding party and nothing earth shaking. Unlike the siege of Constantinople in 717-718, a vastly more important event. But going against centuries of Occidental wisdom was a bit too difficult I guess.4

Some distortions are less innocent however:

1890, December 20, Battle of Wounded Knee. Leadership of the Sioux now devolved on Chief Big Foot, he was defeated by the 7th Cavalry, which thus gained revenge for its defeat on the Little Big Horn (see p. 906) This was the last major Indian conflict.5

Lets see Chief Big Foot was extremely ill and on a stretcher, unarmed and was riddled with bullets has he lay there in the camp which was surrounded by the 7th cavalry. Over 200 at least and probably 300 Sioux men, women and children were killed. The great majority of 7th cavalry dead and wounded were caused by their own bullets and artillery. This is why virtually everyone calls Wounded Knee a massacre. But then to some people it is required to save the honour of the American Army that this sordid episode be called a battle.6

The previous pages also contain similar distortions about the Indian wars. For example:

The refusal of the Northern Sioux tribes to go onto their assigned reservations led to the most serious Indian uprising since that of Tecumseh.7

Well first of all it was not the most serious Indian uprising since Tecumseh, the Seminole Indian war, 1835-1842, was worst for one. Secondly Tecumseh was leading not an uprising but resistance against invasion. The Indian tribes did not for one accept that they were subjects of the United States so they were not revolting against the authority of the United States. Thirdly the cause of Sioux was not simply a refusal to go back onto the reservations, which many could not do and was an illegal order that they were not bound to obey anyway. Finally this remark ignores the real issue the attempt by the U.S. government to seize the Black hills over the opposition of the Sioux.8

On the next page we read:

1876, June 17, Battle of the Rosebud. Crook again caught up with Crazy Horse, who had now assembled a force of 4000 – 6000 warriors. Against odds of at least 5-1 Crook fought a bitterly contested drawn battle.9

Well first of all Crazy Horse was just one of a number of war chiefs. At most the Indians at the Rosebud had 1200 warriors and the actual number was probably c. 1000. Crook had c. 1300 men. If anything he outnumbered the Indians. Yes the battle was a tactical draw but Crook retired afterwards and did not move for a month. So if anything he lost. But then I suppose it is necessary to beef up the reputation of the American military for what is frankly an embarrassing result.10

One the next page we read:

Comment. Chief Joseph must be ranked among the great American military leaders.11

Chief Joseph was not a military chief, he left that to others. Military decisions were made by a collective of military chiefs among the Nez Perce Indians not by one paramount leader.12

In a few pages we have quite a collection of mistakes. Some like the one about Chief Joseph indicate simple ignorance. The others seem to be based on a desire to save the reputation of the U.S. government and army and are thus examples of official received wisdom.

Another relatively innocent error is:

1391-1399. Ottoman Siege of Constantinople.13

Well the siege was actually 1394-1402. After Tamerlane defeated the Ottoman Turks in the battle of Angora the siege was lifted. In fairness many books have these years for the siege.14

On another by page we read: “Syria never recovered from Tamerlane’s devastation”.15 Sorry to say this but Syria rapidly recovered. The phrase is simple puffery.

On one page we read:

1423, September-October. Ziska's invasion of Hungary. This failed, despite initial success.16

This is simply wrong Ziska did not invade Hungary, although there was a Hussite invasion of Hungary in 1431, which Ziska was not involved with Ziska having died in 1424. It appears that the 1431 invasion was back dated to 1423.17

An example of compound error is:

1213-1226. Conclusion of the Crusade. Muret was the last important engagement of the crusade, but the heretics persisted for more than a decade while the crusaders systematically seized one fortified stronghold after another and ruthlessly put most of the heretics to the sword. Simon was killed during a siege of a stronghold near Toulouse (1222). But his successors carried on; the last embers of heresy were stamped out (1226).18

The above is a farrago of error. Well to go in order. Muret was not the last important engagement of the Crusade. The main opposition to Simon and the Crusaders was local thoroughly Catholic nobility and people who resented Simon and his Crusaders attempt to use a Crusade has a precept to dispossess them. Resistance did not just persist for a decade, (actually 16 years) after Muret but was successful in driving out the Crusaders. Simon was killed in besieging Toulouse, not a stronghold nearby, which had revolted against him. Simon was killed in 1218 not 1222. His successors did indeed carry on and were defeated. Simon’s son gave up all his “rights” to the French king. The French King intervened in 1226 and finally after severe fighting forced the submission of Languedoc in 1229, (not 1226). And it took about a century to stamp out “heresy” in Languedoc after 1226.19

Some times the text contradicts itself and in this case on the same page!

Supported by Nadir Kuli Beg, an obscure Khorasan chieftain, Tahmasp conquered Meshed and Heart (1728).

…

1730. Conquest of Meshed. Nadir marched on Meshed where an independent Afghan chieftain, Malik Mahmud, had established himself (1722) and now refused to submit to the new shah. Nadir defeated Malik outside the city, which he then captured through treachery.

…

With Nadir occupied in the west, there were outbreaks in Khorasan, largely inspired and exploited by the Abdali Afghans of Heart. Nadir raised the siege of Eviran, marched 1,400 miles east, defeated the Abdalis, invested and captured Herat (1732).20

Well what happened was it 1728 or 1730 / 1732? Just how did the editor miss that one?

And there is of course the old “Oriental” horde cliche. For example we read that Xerxes assembled an army of 200,000 men in 480 B.C.E., that there were 50,000 Persians at Marathon and 100,000 at Plataea.21 All those figures can be dismissed without more ado as nonsense. In the same spirit we have the old cliche of the Ottoman Turkish horde for example 200,000 at the siege of Rhodes (1522). 70-80,000 at the battle of Mohacs (1526).22 Of course that is only some of the “Oriental” horde exaggerations that exist throughout the book. In fact it appears that the size of Ottoman Turk armies are almost always exaggerated in the book.

The stereotype of the small European army fighting the huge “oriental” army is a cliche with a long tradition in the west. It probably is related to ideas of innate western superiority and the desire to inflate western accomplishments but it still annoying to see a reference work peddle this sort of nonsense.

The book also when it comes to more recent time periods is marred by a rather obvious political / ideological bias. For example:

All ethical standards of western civilization were scorned by the Communists.23

Really? One doesn’t have to approve of the very bad Chinese / North Korean treatment of prisoners to realize that this statement is simply agitation propaganda. One could of course discuss some of the standards of “Western Civilization” to realize that things are not quite so Manichean or to realize perhaps it would have been better to say, “many of the standards of civilized treatment of prisoners of war were violated by the Communists” i.e., the Geneva Conventions, which is true but doesn’t have quite the same Manichean sense of the original phrase.24

The section on the Vietnam war,25 manages to state in a particularly concise manner the common shibboleth that the U.S. had won the war by the middle of 1972 and that they were deprived of victory through treachery and being stabbed in the back. The similarity of this fantasy with the old German legend of being stabbed in the back and therefore losing the First World War is interesting and it is of course of equal validity.26

The book also suffers from an excessive concentration of the west in terms of history that leads to a very distorted idea of the importance of events elsewhere. For example the amount of attention devoted to the American Civil war (37 pages) as against the Taiping Rebellion in China (less than a page).27

So the conclusion is that this particular reference work should be used with great care and its facts double checked if you are going to rely on them. Also very unfortunately these sorts of errors of fact and interpretation are far too common is such works.

1. Dupuy, R. Ernest & Dupuy, Trevor N., The Encyclopedia of Military History, Revised Edition, Harper and Row Pub., New York, 1977.

2. Ibid. p. 204.

3. Kennedy, Hugh, The Great Arab Conquests, Orion Books Ltd., London, 2007, pp. 319-322, and Lewis, Bernard, The Muslim Discovery of Europe, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1982, pp. 18-20.

4. Ibid. Lewis, Kennedy, pp. 330-332.

5. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 907.

6. Brown, Dee, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, Bantam Books, New York, 1971, pp. 389-419.

7. Dupuy and Dupuy, p. 905.

8. Brown, pp. 261-296, Gray, John S., Centennial Campaign, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK., 1976, pp. 9-34.

9. Dupuy & Dupuy,. p. 906.

10. Gray, pp. 119-138, gives a figure of 750 warriors at p. 120, Sarf, Wayne Michael, The Little Big Horn Campaign, Combined Pub., Conshohocken PENN., 1993, pp. 87-115, gives a figure of 1500 on page 90, which however includes all the warriors in the camp not just those who had gone to fight Crook.

11. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 907.

12. Beal, Merrill D., “I Will Fight No More Forever”, Ballantine Books, New York, 1963, pp. 277-280.

13. Dupuy & Dupuy,. p. 388.

14. Nicol, Donald M., The Last Centuries of Byzantium, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 302-317.

15. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 390.

16. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 433.

17. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 368.

18. Fudge, Thomas A., The Crusade against Heretics in Bohemia, 1418-1437, Ashgate Pub. Ltd., Aldershot, England, 2002, p. 336.

19. O’Shea, Stephen, The Perfect Heresy, Douglas & McIntyre, Toronto, 2000, pp. 157-190, Oldenbourg, Zoe, Massacre at Montsegur, Phoenix Press, London, 1961, pp. 177-253.

20. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 649.

21. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 25, 23, 27. for a critique of these figures see Delbrück, Hans, Warfare in Antiquity: History of the Art of War, Volume I, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln NB., 1990.

22. Dupuy & Dupuy. p. 496, 497. Turkish Chronicles give a maximum of 46,000 for Mohacs for example, see Lamb, Harold, Suleiman The Magnificent, Bantam Books, 1951, p. 87.

23. Dupuy& Dupuy, p. 1251.

24. See Hastings, Max, Korean War, Simon and Shuster, New York, 1988.

25. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 1209-1221.

26. For a version of this stab in the back mythos see Colby, William, McCargar, James, Lost Victory, Contemporary Books, New York, 1989. For an altogether more accurate view see Bergerud, Eric M., The Dynamics of Defeat, Westview Press, Oxford, 1991. For a review of the role of the media, and refutation of the myth of the “Liberal” media stabbing in the back see Hallin, Daniel, The “Uncensored War”, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA., 1986.

27. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 868-905, The Taiping Rebellion in pieces over the following pages 862-864.

Pierre Cloutier

Simon de Montfort
Some Thoughts

Between 1209 C.E., and 1229 C.E., the south of France was convulsed with the war known as the Albigensian Crusade. The Crusade was formally against the so called Cathar heretics of southern France1 but turned rapidly into a mass pillaging campaign in which northern French nobility sought to gain fortune and fame.

The main leader of the Crusaders during the first part of this Crusade was Simon de Montfort, (1160-1218 C.E.). Simon was born near Paris and was the inheritor of the Montfort estates near Paris upon his fathers death in 1181 C.E. Simon de Montfort went on the infamous 4th Crusade although he did not reap much benefit from his participation.2

Drawing of a Stained Glass Portrait of Simon de Montfort

Simon’s great claim to fame is his military leadership of the Crusade against the Cathar heretics in southern France, which turned into a campaign of conquest and looting of the southern French nobility.

Map of Southern France before the Crusade

Simon’s extraordinary military ability was in evidence through much of this time period along with his iron determination to succeed. His greatest victory was his incredible victory in the Battle of Muret in 1213, which he achieved over Pedro II of Aragon, (who was killed) and the southern nobility and city militia of Toulouse.3

To quote:

(466) After this – and the death of about twenty thousand of the enemies of the faith, some by drowning, some by the sword – our most Christian Count walked barefoot from the place where he had dismounted to the church, to render thanks to Almighty God for the victory He had been granted, since he recognized that this miracle had been wrought by God’s grace and not the efforts of men His horse and his armour he gave as alms for the poor.4

So speaks Peter about his near “perfect” Christian hero after the battle.

Unfortunately Simon’s great military ability was not matched by much ability in the realm of statecraft or administration and the organized looting, disinheriting and exploitation of the domains that Simon conquered soon earned Simon a great deal of hatred and the almost extraordinary brutality of the crusade did not help. For example:

(227) Soon Aimeric, the former lord of Montreal, of whom we spoke above, was led out of Laveur with up to eighty other Knights. The noble Count [Simon] proposed that they all should be hanged from fork-shaped gibbets. However, after Aimeric, who was taller than the others, had been hanged, the gibbets started to fall down, since through excessive haste they had not been properly fixed in the ground. The Count realized that to continue would cause a long delay and ordered the rest to be put to the sword. The crusaders fell to this task with great enthusiasm and quickly slew them on the spot. The Count had the Dame of Laveur, sister of Aimeric and a heretic of the worst sort, thrown into a pit and stones heaped on her. Our Crusaders burnt innumerable heretics, with great rejoicing.

Another account of the same event.

(ch. 16) Having thus achieved the unconditional surrender of Laveur. Count Simon had the noble lord Aimeric hanged, together with a few knights; he put to the sword some other nobles and certain others who had mingled with them in the hope that knights would be spared, about eighty in all. He consigned about three hundred robed heretics to everlasting fire by having them consumed by the flames of the material world. He had Giraude the mistress of Laveur thrown into a pit and stones heaped on her. The ordinary people were spared, on conditions.

A final account of the same events.

(s. 71) They had taken this place, [Laveur] as the book says. There they burned at least four hundred evil heretics, heaping them all onto one great funeral pyre. Sir Aimery was hanged, along with many other knights – four Score they hanged there like thieves on the gibbets, some here, some there. Lady Girauda was taken and she shrieked and screamed and shouted. They held her across a well and dropped her into it, I know this for certain, and threw stones on top of her. This caused great dismay. But the other noblewomen were all set free by a kind and courteous Frenchman.5

What makes those reports even more damning is that they are from sources that approved of that sort of horror, and thought of Simon has a great hero. Unfortunately this sort of atrocity was hardly unusual but very common indeed during the Crusade.6 Indeed Peter especially is notorious for excusing and exalting in the murderous, vile atrocities of the Crusaders but if the southerners respond in kind he is quite indignant and angry. A rather interesting example of hypocrisy, but one so blatant and barefaced that I doubt that Peter was even aware in any sense of it being hypocrisy. After all his attitude seems to have been its all right if my side does it but utterly evil and wrong if the other side does it. William of Puylaurens seems to have been if pro-crusader much less of an apologist for their crimes and aware that excesses didn’t help the crusader cause.

Well sometimes in human affairs the wicked are punished, Despite Papal approval of the dispossession of Count Raymond of Toulouse, Raymond VI and his son, who became Raymond VII, continued to fight back. Toulouse, despite capitulating, to Simon was restive under his rule. Previously to quell the inhabitants of Toulouse Simon had sacked the city and razed its walls to the ground.

On the 13th of September 1217 C.E., Count Raymond VI with a tiny group of supporters entered Toulouse after a long ride from the border of Aragon. Toulouse rose in rebellion in support of the Count. To quote a contemporary account:

(s. 182) When the count [Raymond VI] entered through the arched gateway all the people flocked to him. Great and small, lords and ladies, wives and husbands, they knelt before him and kissed his clothing, his feet and legs, his arms and fingers. With tears of delight and joy they welcomed him, for joy regained bears both flower and fruit.

...

“Now we have Jesus Christ!” They said to each other, “now we have the morning star risen and shining upon us! This is our lord who was lost! Through him worth and paratge are freed from their graves, are healed and restored, and our whole kinship regains power for ever!”7

Page from a Manuscript of The Song of the Cathar Wars

Thus speaks an unabashed supporter of the southerners. Peter has a different view of the matter.

(s. 600) For at this time the citizens of Toulouse – perhaps we should say “the deceivers” - were inspired by the Devil to secede from god and the Church and revolt against the Count de Montfort. They welcomed into their city Raymond, their erstwhile Count and lord, who had been deservedly deprived of his possessions and exiled on the authority of the Pope and the Second Lateran Council.8

In October of 1217 C.E., Simon appeared in front of Toulouse and he besieged the city for eight months. The siege was fought with great determination on both sides. The Toulousians amazingly where able to rebuild their walls to a defensible state in the short time before Simon arrived.9

Despite repeated attempts Simon fails to take Toulouse and in the meantime his grip on his possessions throughout the south is slipping. On June 25 1218 C.E., while fighting a sortie from Toulouse Simon is killed. To quote The Song of the Cathar Wars:

(s. 205) As Sir Guy [Simon’s brother] was speaking and beginning to shout and yell, there was in the town a mangonel built by a carpenter and dragged with its platform from St. Sernin. This was worked by noblewomen, by little girls and men’s wives, and now a stone arrived just where it was needed and struck Count Simon on his steel helmet, shattering his eyes, brains, back teeth, forehead and jaw. Bleeding and black, the count dropped dead on the ground.

...

But a messenger brought the news [Count Simon’s death] into Toulouse and such was the joy that all over the town they ran to the churches and lit candles in all the candlesticks and cried out, “Rejoice! God is merciful and paratge shines forth, victorious forever! The cruel and murderous count is dead, dead unshriven because he was a man of blood!” Trumpets, horns and universal joy, chimes and peals and clamouring bells in belfries, drums, tabors and slender clarons rang through the town tell every paving-stone re-echoed.10

An allegoric painting of the Lamb of the Languedoc killing the Lion of de Montfort

A popular ballad was composed at this time by the southerners and it goes as follows:

Montfort
Es mort
Es mort
Es mort!
Viva Tolosa
Ciotat gloriosa
et poderosa!
Tornan lo paratge et l'onor!
Montfort
Es mort!
Es mort!
Es mort!

A translation into English is:

Montfort
Is dead
Is dead
Is dead!
Hooray for Toulouse
Glorious city
and powerful!
Honour and paratge return!
Montfort
Is dead!
Is dead!
Is dead!11

Peter, not surprisingly, has a different response to Simon’s death and composed the following epitaph.

(612) Suddenly a stone from an enemy mangonel struck Christ’s knight on the head. The blow was lethal. Twice beating his breast he commended his soul to God and the Blessed Virgin. Like St. Stephen – and stoned to death in that Saint’s city – he went to rest in the lords keeping. Before he received the fatal wound the Lords brave knight – say rather, if we are not mistaken, his most glorious martyr – was five times wounded by the enemy archers, like the Saviour for whom he now patiently accepted death, and by whose side he now lives in sublime peace, as we believe.12

William of Puylaurens says the following:

(ch. 28) So, the man who inspired terror from the Mediterranean to the British sea fell by a blow from a single stone; at his fall those who had previously stood firm fell down. In him, who was a good man, the insolence of his subordinates was thrown down. I affirm that later I heard the Count of Toulouse (the last of his line) generously praise him – even though he was the enemy – for his fidelity, his foresight, his energy and all the qualities which befit a leader.

God then gave a signal that those who arrogantly sought to govern unwilling subjects and gave no thought to purging the land of heresy (for which the whole enterprise had been started), had departed from his way.13

That is the semi-positive verdict of William of Puylaurens who is also, we must not forget, a whole hearted supporter of the inquisition and hater of heretics / heresy.

In the end despite the subsequent recovery by the southerners of virtually everything from the Crusaders and the abandonment of the whole enterprise by Simon de Montfort’s son it was all for naught. The intervention of the King the France beginning in 1226 finally broke southern resistance and in 1229 C.E., forced the Count of Toulouse, Raymond VII son of Count Raymond VI, (who had died in 1222 C.E.,) to sign a humiliating peace, (Peace of Paris 1229 C.E.,). Subsequently the Inquisition was introduced into the south and Catharism brutally suppressed. In the end the lands of the Count of Toulouse were incorporated into the royal domain of the French king.14

So in the end all did not turn out well but an alternative epitaph exists for Simon de Montfort and it is entirely appropriate unlike the epitaphs of William of Puylaurens or Peter. Both of whom, especially Peter, are far too enamored of the brave fighter against heresy. It is from the Anonymous contributor to The Song of the Cathar Wars, that we get the words that damn Simon de Montfort for all time, and they go as follows:

(s. 208) Straightway they bore him to burial in Carcassonne, and celebrated the funeral service at the monastery of Saint-Nazaire. And those who can read may learn from his epitaph that he is a saint and a martyr; that he is bound to rise again to share the heritage, to flourish in that state of unparalleled felicity, to wear a crown and have his place in the Kingdom. But for my part I have heard tell that the matter must stand thus: if one may seek Christ Jesus in this world by killing men and shedding blood by the destruction of human souls; by compounding murder and hearkening to perverse counsel; by setting the torch to great fires; by destroying the Barons and dishonouring Parage; by winning lands through violence, and working for the triumph of vain pride; by fostering evil and snuffing out good; by slaughtering women and slitting children’s throats – why, then he must needs wear a crown, and shine resplendent in Heaven.15

Tombstone of Simon de Montfort at Carcassonne16

1. For accounts of the Cathar “heresy” see The Perfect Heresy, Stephen O’Shea, Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver, 2000, pp. 17-31, Massacre at Montsegur, Zoe Oldenbourg, Phoenix Press, London, 1961, pp. 28-81, The Cathars, Malcolm Lambert, Blackwell Pub. Ltd., London, 1998, pp. 131-170, The Cathars, Malcolm Barber, The Cathars, Longman, Toronto, 2000, pp. 6-33, 71-126, The Origins of European Dissent, 2d edition, R. I. Moore, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1985, pp. 197-240, The Medieval Manichee, Steven Runciman, The Viking Press, New York, 1947, pp. 116-170. See also The Birth of Popular Heresy, R. I. Moore, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1995, pp. 9-26, 113-154. for an interesting collection of essays about aspects of "Heresy" and "Crusading" see Crusaders and Heretics, 12th - 14th Centuries, Malcolm Barber, Variorum, Aldershot, Britain, 1995.

2. See Wikipedia article Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester at Here.

3. For contemporary accounts of the battle see The History of the Albigensian Crusade, Peter de Les Vaux-de-Cernay, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, England, 1998, pp. 206-219, (s. 453-486). (Peter accompanied Simon on the Crusade has a chronicler). A copy in Latin can be found Here. The Song of the Cathar Wars, William of Tudela & Anonymous, Scolar Press, Aldershot England, 1996, pp. 67-71, (s. 133-141). (This is from the part written by Anonymous who is very anti-Crusader and almost certainly attached to the court of the Counts of Toulouse) A copy can be found in French Here. The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens, William of Puylaurens, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, England, 2003, pp. 43-49, (ch. 20-21) (William of Puylaurens was an aide to Bishop Fulk of Toulouse and then to Fulk's successor in the period 1225-1260.) A copy can be found in Latin Here. Modern accounts are O’Shea, pp. 132-149, Oldenbourg, pp. 165-170.

4. Peter, p. 213.

5. The Three quotes in order are from, Peter, p. 117, Williams of Puylaurens, p. 40, Song of the Cathar Wars, William of Tudela section, p. 42. Laveur fell in 1211 C.E.

6. See O’Shea and Oldenbourg for more of the disgusting details.

7. Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous section, p. 122-123.

8. Peter, p. 270.

9. The best account of this siege is in Song of the Cathar Wars, pp. 122-176, (s.182-207).

10. Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous, p. 172.

11. Oldenbourg, p. 201. Translation by Pierre Cloutier.

12. Peter, p. 277.

13. William of Puylaurens, pp. 61-62.

14. For the unpleasant story see William of Puylaurens, pp. 64-125, (ch. 30-50), For the Treaty of Paris, 1229, a copy can be found in Chronicle of William of Puylaurens, pp. 138-144, For more discussion of these events see Oldenbourg, pp. 207-309, O’Shea, pp. 179-238.

15. I use the translation of this passage from Oldenbourg, pp. 199-200, which I like the best. The passage can also be found in Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous, pp. 176. The passage can be found on the website Languedoc at Here. Positive accounts of Simon de Montfort are few and far between An example of this is Simon de Montfort (1165-1218), His Life and Work: A Critical Study and Evaluation based on the Sources, Robert John Kovarik, Phd, St Louis University, 1963, a copy can be found Here. Aside from excusing, rationlizing Simon's behavior and attitudes. (The old saw about the "times" etc., ignoring the tolerance of the South for example). The author quite selectively uses data. For example he quotes (p. 348), the first part of Anonymous' epitath but excludes all of the stuff from "But for my part..." The author also manages to elide all the stuff indicating the great hatred with which Southerners regarded Simon de Montfort.

16. The body of Simon de Montfort is no longer there. Simon's son removed it in 1224 C.E., to prevent it from being violated by the resurgent southerners. See Oldenbourg, p. 207.

Pierre Cloutier