Where Historians Differ

To me, one of the most interesting things to discover in reading secondary sources on any topic, is a major difference in the opinions of historians.  Sometimes, these are open and obvious -- the author states that there is an ongoing debate on a topic and then presents his conclusion and the evidence which led him to it.  Other times, they are insidious -- stated as fact without reference to debate or even the existence of alternative opinions.  In the latter case, it is fascinating to me to guess why the historian presented the matter as he did.  Was it a preference for one primary source over another?  A disregard for the alternative historical opinion so profound as to render it not worthy of mention?  Or a desire to exclude rival narratives from a chosen way to tell the story?

Below is a partial list of some of these differences in the recounting of the Albigensian Crusade, along with the statements of various historians about them:

(Titles only -- content to follow)

• Who were the authors of the primary sources and when did they write?

• How should we rate the reliability of the primary sources?

• Was there such a thing as the "Cathar" heresy?

• Was there an organized heretical church in the Languedoc before the Crusade?

• Did an idyllic and tolerant Occitan culture exist in the Languedoc prior to the Crusade?

• Did the nobility and knighthood of the Languedoc exist in a feudal system?

• Did Raimon V of Toulouse suggest that the Crusade attack Raimon-Roger Trencavel?

• Did Arnau Amalric say "Kill them all!  God will know his own"?

• Were the atrocities of the Albigensian Crusade typical or aberrant?

• Was Pope Innocent III in control of the Crusade through his Legates or did it escape his reach?

• Was there a singular institution which can be called the Inquisition, resulting from the Crusade?

• Were the Dominicans pious preachers or vicious Inquisitors?

-- Sam Taylor