AHC: Papal Toulouse and Innocent III

[John7755 يوحنا]

Your challenge if you choose to accept it, is many fold. The first objective is with a POD in 1198, the ascension of Pope Innocent III, to create a Papal controlled Toulouse and surrounding regions. This can be achieved through either direct control or Papal vassalage of the Duke of Toulouse and its removal from the French and or Aragonese spheres. How might this be possible and how long might it last?

In connection to this, how much can we empower and strengthen the Papacy and the interests of it and its allies with a POD in 1198, using the strongest of Popes. Points system can be allocated regarding this and are as follows: (the person who can reasonably garner the most points 'wins')

2 Points for the goal of a Papal Toulouse

1 Point for Papal maintenance of the Donation of Constantine

8 Points for weakening the Paris crown by some method and weakening its ability to control its appendages

7 Points for 4th Crusade victory in Egypt

4 Point for the creation of the Latin Empire

2 Points for the continued disunity between Sicily-Naples and the Empire

9 Points for Innocent III's accepted control regarding the appointing of the Emperor

1 Point for protecting the city of Zara from Venice-Crusaders

3 Points for the submission of King John to the Papacy and extra 1 Point if the Church property seizing does not occur

3 Points for successful Albigensian Crusade

1 Point for the subjugation of the Bosnian Bogomils and victories Hungarian campaigns in the Balkans

If there is another achievement that can be made that you feel warrants points, I will look at the example and reward it a point value and add it to the points that you already had accumulated. Some of the examples of points, would be any lands gains or other events that can benefit the Papacy that are related to it.

Hope that this would be fun. I look forward to seeing who can garner the most points!

 

[LSCatilina]

Simon de Monfort survives and manages to keep the County of Toulouse and Duchy of Narbonne as its own unified holdings. He formally pledges alliegance to the Pope (without much real consequences, as the formal alliegences of Toulouse to Plantagenets was IOTL)
Giving that an unified principalty in southern part of the kingdom instead of the desintegrated mess that existed after the Great Southern War would be more akin to the degree of autonomy of Flanders or Brittany, it really limits Capetian projection in the region (no access to the Mediterranean Sea in the XIIIth century) while I don't see Montfort being particularily rebellious.

Latin Empire and how the Imperial-English alliance is beaten doesn't really changes, so easy points there.

2+1+8+4+3+3 : 21 points.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@LSCatilina Is there any other actions Innocent III can feasibly take to weaken the French monarchy in Paris and promote more decentralized rule in the region and further his power?

 

[LSCatilina]

None that I can think of. Not only his immediate influence in France was limited politically-wise and giving that Philipp II was the best obvious ally against Honestaufen's ambitions, tempering with him would have been unwise, and he actually gave Philippe Auguste some support against John Lackland.

Now, it can be argued that Innocent III wasn't, at all, pleased with the king enforcing royal hegemony within the kingdom at the expense of pontifical authority and arbitration (his divorce, but critically how he gave up on Crusade to attack Richard's holdings when he was still in Holy Land) and basically called him complacent and ungrateful son. Even there, tough, the pope kept a certain affection to the kingdom and didn't really searched to enforce a temporal autority rather than make Philipp acknowledging his religious and arbitration authority; and stressed the necessary alliance between Rome and the specially privilegied Capetian dynasty.
It basically ended with Innocent III telling to the French king "you warned us about the emperor, we didn't listened, we should have".

Weakening the power of Capetians was probably the least of his ideas, at least as such : it was more about making Philipp a more ideologically and religiously compatible ally with the pontifical authority.

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01425799/document

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

None that I can think of. Not only his immediate influence in France was limited politically-wise and giving that Philipp II was the best obvious ally against Honestaufen's ambitions, tempering with him would have been unwise, and he actually gave Philippe Auguste some support against John Lackland.

Now, it can be argued that Innocent III wasn't, at all, pleased with the king enforcing royal hegemony within the kingdom at the expense of pontifical authority and arbitration (his divorce, but critically how he gave up on Crusade to attack Richard's holdings when he was still in Holy Land) and basically called him complacent and ungrateful son. Even there, tough, the pope kept a certain affection to the kingdom and didn't really searched to enforce a temporal autority rather than make Philipp acknowledging his religious and arbitration authority; and stressed the necessary alliance between Rome and the specially privilegied Capetian dynasty.
It basically ended with Innocent III telling to the French king "you warned us about the emperor, we didn't listened, we should have".

Weakening the power of Capetians was probably the least of his ideas, at least as such : it was more about making Philipp a more ideologically and religiously compatible ally with the pontifical authority.

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01425799/document

I understand the mutual agreements between Innocent III and France was effective to combat the expansionist Honestaufen, but it is also the case that the French expansion of certain state powers and dimished feudal powers and privileges on the part of the Papacy could easily be foreseen to be a clear cut danger. If not for the fear of complete encirclement and breaches in Italy by the Honestaufen, it would seem the logical point of action by the Papacy to stop at all costs the growth of certain large state institutions and limit the degeneration of manorialism in France whilst keeping a maintenance of decentralization, if the goal is to keep a certain power of the Papacy. As we know, my opinion on what the Papacy should have been viewing was made true with the Papacy of Boniface VIII.

Thank you for the link also, I will look into it in my free time.

 

[LSCatilina]

I understand the mutual agreements between Innocent III and France

We're not talking of mutual agreement there, just a convergence of interests with a deep "ideological connection between royal legitimacy and power in France, and pontifical theocracy. Mutual understanding over convergent/divergent relationship, if you will.

There's a translation of a letter from Gregory IX to Louis IX in 1239, it might help you understand this relation.

God, obeyed by celestial legions, having established in our world different kingdoms according diversity of languages and climates, gave to an great number of governents special missions for the fulfillment of His plan.
And as He once preferred the tribe of Juda to any other of the sons of Jacob, and as He gave her with special blessing, so He chose France in preference to all the other nations of Earth, for the protection of the Catholic faith and for the defense of religious freedom. Because of this, France is the Kingdom of God itself, France's foes are Christ's foes.
Like before the tribe of Juda recieved from the heaven a most special blessing amongst the other sons of Jacob the patriarch, likewise the Kingdom of France is above all the other peoples, crowned by God Himselfwith extraordinary privileges. The tribe of Jua was the ancitipation of the Kingdom of France.
France, for the exaltation of Catholic faith face the fights of the Lord in East and West. Under the guidance of her illustrious Monarchs, she crushes the ennemies of Church's freedom.
One day, by divine disposition, she takes the Holy Land from Unfaithfuls; another day, she takes back the Empire of Constantinople under the obedience of Roman See.
How many dangers the zeal of her Monarchs freed the Church!
Heretical perversity had almost destroyed faith in Albigeois, France won't cease to fight it, until she almost entierely rooted out Evil and gave back to faith its ancient dominion.
Nothing made her lost devotion to God and Church: there Church always kept her vigor: moreover, to defend them, Kings and Peoples of France never hesitated to give their blood and to throw themselves into many dangers...
Our predecessors, Romans Pontiffs, considering the constant following of great services, in their pressing needs continuously depended from France; France, persuaded it was not about the cause of one man, but God's, never refused to give the required help, moreover, anticipating the request, she was seen giving from her own rescue from her strength to a distressed Church.
Thus, it is most clear for us that the Redemptor choose the blessed Kingdom of France as the special executor of His divine will : He bear her on his back as a quiver; He usually takes frm there His favourite arrows when, with the bow, He wants to defend the freedom of Church and Faith, crush impiety and protect justice...​

Now, it's obviously clear that the Pope is idealizing this relationship there : French kings first alliegence, politically-wise, was firstmost to themselves; and Popes really frowned upon Capetian policies going against their own political perceptions.
But from the XIIth onward, France took more and more importance into Pontifical vision of "european balance" until the conflicts with the Emperors went deep enough that, from two main centers of western Christianity outside Rome, Capetians emerged as politically and ideologically as favoured partners of the Pope.

but it is also the case that the French expansion of certain state powers and dimished feudal powers and privileges on the part of the Papacy

That's, with all respect, an anachronistic view. Philippe and Capetians didn't as much diminished feudal powers than they built a royal feudal hegemony over their powerful vassals. The point was not that the temporal power of Papacy was lowered in France, at the very least I can't see a single decision going there, but that Capetian policy was relatively lay in a period where Pontifical authority saw itself as the arbitrator of Europe on religious grounds : Philippe matrimonial policy or actions against John Lackland weren't going against the Pope as a political power, but couldn't care less about pontifical arbitration tentatives.

Pontifical opposition to Capetian's policy have so little to do with the kings imposing their authority on their vassals, that while he supported John against Philippe many times, he did condamned him for his poor and unlawful management of his holdings in Aquitaine and agreed that confiscation was a fair measure. Where Philippe went too far again in the 1210's for the pope, is when he tried to overthrow John from his English throne, which he had no right or legitimacy to do according Innocent.

I'll add that manorialism wasn't in any danger in the XIIIth century, even if the Pope cared about it (which he didn't).

If you can read French (I don't remember if you do, sorry), the linked source in the previous post is quite interesting about Pontifical demands.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

We're not talking of mutual agreement there, just a convergence of interests with a deep "ideological connection between royal legitimacy and power in France, and pontifical theocracy. Mutual understanding over convergent/divergent relationship, if you will.

There's a translation of a letter from Gregory IX to Louis IX in 1239, it might help you understand this relation.

God, obeyed by celestial legions, having established in our world different kingdoms according diversity of languages and climates, gave to an great number of governents special missions for the fulfillment of His plan.
And as He once preferred the tribe of Juda to any other of the sons of Jacob, and as He gave her with special blessing, so He chose France in preference to all the other nations of Earth, for the protection of the Catholic faith and for the defense of religious freedom. Because of this, France is the Kingdom of God itself, France's foes are Christ's foes.
Like before the tribe of Juda recieved from the heaven a most special blessing amongst the other sons of Jacob the patriarch, likewise the Kingdom of France is above all the other peoples, crowned by God Himselfwith extraordinary privileges. The tribe of Jua was the ancitipation of the Kingdom of France.
France, for the exaltation of Catholic faith face the fights of the Lord in East and West. Under the guidance of her illustrious Monarchs, she crushes the ennemies of Church's freedom.
One day, by divine disposition, she takes the Holy Land from Unfaithfuls; another day, she takes back the Empire of Constantinople under the obedience of Roman See.
How many dangers the zeal of her Monarchs freed the Church!
Heretical perversity had almost destroyed faith in Albigeois, France won't cease to fight it, until she almost entierely rooted out Evil and gave back to faith its ancient dominion.
Nothing made her lost devotion to God and Church: there Church always kept her vigor: moreover, to defend them, Kings and Peoples of France never hesitated to give their blood and to throw themselves into many dangers...
Our predecessors, Romans Pontiffs, considering the constant following of great services, in their pressing needs continuously depended from France; France, persuaded it was not about the cause of one man, but God's, never refused to give the required help, moreover, anticipating the request, she was seen giving from her own rescue from her strength to a distressed Church.
Thus, it is most clear for us that the Redemptor choose the blessed Kingdom of France as the special executor of His divine will : He bear her on his back as a quiver; He usually takes frm there His favourite arrows when, with the bow, He wants to defend the freedom of Church and Faith, crush impiety and protect justice...​

Now, it's obviously clear that the Pope is idealizing this relationship there : French kings first alliegence, politically-wise, was firstmost to themselves; and Popes really frowned upon Capetian policies going against their own political perceptions.
But from the XIIth onward, France took more and more importance into Pontifical vision of "european balance" until the conflicts with the Emperors went deep enough that, from two main centers of western Christianity outside Rome, Capetians emerged as politically and ideologically as favoured partners of the Pope.


That's, with all respect, an anachronistic view. Philippe and Capetians didn't as much diminished feudal powers than they built a royal feudal hegemony over their powerful vassals. The point was not that the temporal power of Papacy was lowered in France, at the very least I can't see a single decision going there, but that Capetian policy was relatively lay in a period where Pontifical authority saw itself as the arbitrator of Europe on religious grounds : Philippe matrimonial policy or actions against John Lackland weren't going against the Pope as a political power, but couldn't care less about pontifical arbitration tentatives.

Pontifical opposition to Capetian's policy have so little to do with the kings imposing their authority on their vassals, that while he supported John against Philippe many times, he did condamned him for his poor and unlawful management of his holdings in Aquitaine and agreed that confiscation was a fair measure. Where Philippe went too far again in the 1210's for the pope, is when he tried to overthrow John from his English throne, which he had no right or legitimacy to do according Innocent.

I'll add that manorialism wasn't in any danger in the XIIIth century, even if the Pope cared about it (which he didn't).

If you can read French (I don't remember if you do, sorry), the linked source in the previous post is quite interesting about Pontifical demands.

I see, was this opinion of Gregory the general case? Gregory here it seems says that the Roman see reclaims the Imperial title from Constantinople and confers it to France? Is this what he is stating, if so, is it not also the case that Innocent III said this regarding the Holy Roman Empire within Germania and Italia? How would he confer inheritances upon several lordships at the same time?

Yes, I can read French, so I will read it and perhaps gain a better view of your views.

 

[LSCatilina]

I see, was this opinion of Gregory the general case?

It's a bit exagerated (due to Louis XI's religious policy being on part with Rome's own; and the lack of imperial alternative), but not outlandish : there was a clear idea of a partnership between the Pope and the kings of Christiendom and particularily both the emperors and the french kings for a while. It's telling that even in the late Xth, when French kings were barely able to enforce their suzerainty (not even their authority) south of Loire and Ottonians were the dominant power of western Europe including influencing things in neighboring kingdoms, both were considered on an equal standing.

The idea that Capetians were natural high-tier partners of Rome was quite ingrained.

That France became a scholarly/theological center in the XIIth, especially under royal's protection, really reinforced this as Popes and religious cadres were issued from these circles.

Gregory here it seems says that the Roman see reclaims the Imperial title from Constantinople and confers it to France?

No, he's saying that French lords (metaphorically rended as "France") took down the orthodox emperors and gave back to Catholic faith the Empire of Romania (Byzantine/Latin Empire) as part of why France is special for Christiendom, along Crusades, Donation of Pepin, etc.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

It's a bit exagerated (due to Louis XI's religious policy being on part with Rome's own; and the lack of imperial alternative), but not outlandish : there was a clear idea of a partnership between the Pope and the kings of Christiendom and particularily both the emperors and the french kings for a while. It's telling that even in the late Xth, when French kings were barely able to enforce their suzerainty (not even their authority) south of Loire and Ottonians were the dominant power of western Europe including influencing things in neighboring kingdoms, both were considered on an equal standing.

The idea that Capetians were natural high-tier partners of Rome was quite ingrained.

That France became a scholarly/theological center in the XIIth, especially under royal's protection, really reinforced this as Popes and religious cadres were issued from these circles.


No, he's saying that French lords (metaphorically rended as "France") took down the orthodox emperors and gave back to Catholic faith the Empire of Romania (Byzantine/Latin Empire) as part of why France is special for Christiendom, along Crusades, Donation of Pepin, etc.

This is true. I had forgotten about the Donation of Pepin honestly. This is certainly a casus for close relations between the Papacy to the lord of France as well as its participation in the crusades and the levels to which it seems the Papacy sought Crusaders in France to a greater degree than other areas.

Another question, you stated that with your proposed post, that the status of Toulouse and nearby areas would develop somewhat similar to Flanders. How in your opinion do you see moving forward considering the rest of your post regarding the extension of certain Papal powers to influence the development of Toulouse as a more autonomous entity with joint ownership by France and the Papacy? Also, what occurs in the region of Provence with nearby Toulouse holding higher autonomy? Would it still come under French sway, or remain relatively soundly within the Empire or associated to it?

Regardless, it would be nice to see any other posts regarding this challenge.

 

[LSCatilina]

the levels to which it seems the Papacy sought Crusaders in France to a greater degree than other areas.

It's also because France tended to dominate, demographically-wise; and because the important political desintegration of France in the late IXth and Xth centuries increased the poll of recruitable miles; which is partlally why Urban II made his call in Clermont. France really benefitted too from being a center of monastic and scholar (then tied to theology) reforms.

How in your opinion do you see moving forward considering the rest of your post regarding the extension of certain Papal powers to influence the development of Toulouse as a more autonomous entity with joint ownership by France and the Papacy?

I don't see it happening, altough the Holy See had a direct authority on Maguelone (whom cathedral was already considered "second only to Rome in the late XIth century) and Melgueil. It's interesting, considering that the coinage of Melgueil had an economic predominance in Languedoc.
But Pontifical direct dominance was there too essentially formal, and the bishops of Maguelone/Montpellier were essentially on their own (especially as Montpellier wasn't within the kingdom of France until the XIVth, and even largely independent from Aragon).

Eventually, I don't see anything coming out of it that would be particularily noteworthy. Toulouse/Narbonne was firmly under French kingship.I could see pontifical influence on Low Languedoc bishopries being a bit more apparent with a formal suzerainty over Simon de Monfort, but that's it, especially as Pontifical Avignon is likely butterflied ITTL.

Also, what occurs in the region of Provence with nearby Toulouse holding higher autonomy?

It was to be given to Raymond VII, which he would keep if he behaved. Arguably, you could see another formal pontifical suzerainty there, but I don't see much effective power as well.

Would it still come under French sway, or remain relatively soundly within the Empire or associated to it?

Giving the crisis in HRE at this point, and the de facto independence of Provencal/Burgundians polities, Capetians will have fair chances swallowing up at least part of it.

Regardless, it would be nice to see any other posts regarding this challenge.

Certainly so.