Talk:Montségur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Montségur is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
The article says that the present Castle of Montsegur, or Montsegur 3, bears no relation to the Cathar building it was built over. Maybe. But that doesn't account for the fact that as castles go its a very wierd construction, medieval or not. It actually seems to violate every law of Medieval defense - only one tower, main gate huge & unfortified. Why is this? Can anyone explain? ThePeg 21:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- While I haven't taken the time it add to this article, the definitive book Massacre at Montsegur by Zoe Oldenbourg asserts that portions of the existing building do date back to Cathar times, and discusses the architectural features in detail. Akradecki 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The castle built subsequently at Montségur had a different purpose than the castle given additional fortification in the 1200s - i.e., it was not a "nest of rebellion" and the South was no longer a separately self-ruled entity. It can be asserted positively that the current ruin does indeed contain NO TRACES whatsoever of the original Cathar castle.Almirena 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Almerina. A surprise to find you here! :-) I get the hunch you really aren't a big fan of the Cathars at all. ;-). What's confusing about this castle is that if you go there, and I have, the museum in the town provides a reconstruction of what it probably looked like when the Cathars were in it. Its basic layout is like the present building but it has huge amounts of wooden construction on it too eg defensive towers etc. Now, we know that the original Cathar castle was torn down once the castle fell, as was customary in those days when an enemy stronghold was taken (the same thing happened to Carcasonne, Beziers, Toulouse etc).In THAT sense there is nothing of the original castle left. What is not clear is whether the present rebuilt castle, which is also pretty dilapidated, was built on completely fresh lines or whether it was built upon the foundations of the old one. Going up there one can see from the topography of the Pog its built on there aren't many ways of constructing a castle there. It has to be the strange, wobbly triangular shape to work. As far as I know - and I may be very wrong - the rebuilt walls and castles of Carcasonne were virtual repros of the old buildings. I suppose what I'm saying is although the present castle isn't the Cathar castle its not clear how much of an idea of how the old Cathar castle would have been like we get from it. There is evidence of outer battlements but there is no suggestion that the building which stands (which probably constituted the inner defences) is built on alternative foundations as far as I know. Whatever the case its a haunting experience being up on that Pog. When I was there a mist came down and surrounded it completely, making it impossible to see out. Also its very small. There were several hundred people up there during the siege. I know people were smaller then but its still very claustrophobic. Whatever the truth about the castle its worth a visit. Whoever chose it as a defensive position chose well. The Pog is extraordinary and one of the people I was with commented that it doesn't fit with any of the other mountains around it. The one thing it reminded me of was the Devil's Tower in Close Encounters Of The Third Kind. It has that vibe. ThePeg 11:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
