During the German Peasant Revolt of 1525, Luther harshly condemned the revolts. But what would happen if he gave them his blessings instead? If I remember correctly, he did somewhat support it at first.
Luther encourages the peasants?
- Thread starter MrNumbahOne
- Start date
"Lutheranism" dies an ugly death, like virtually every other religious movement that the Princes saw as subversive and dangerous to their power. Historians speak a great deal of "Philipism" the religious ideals of Philip Melancthon--Melancthon is pointed up as a successful example of a founder of a Reformed Church, while Luther is considered a bloody failure, even if he did, perhaps, play a role in inspiring Melancthon.
This is of course, assuming that Luther somehow gets a personality transfer that would make him do everything he did prior to the revolts, but approve of them after they start.
This is of course, assuming that Luther somehow gets a personality transfer that would make him do everything he did prior to the revolts, but approve of them after they start.
Would it be delayed? A lot of princes wanted get their hands on church's properties, it's easy for them to find a suitable reform theologian.
The Reformation was already starting (see Zwingli; also Hussites). Simply put--printing and increased literacy have a way of making people get ideas, and then letting those ideas spread.
I wonder if by irony such move with butterflies as the Protestant Princes's reactions could strenghten-push peoples back to Catholicism... as the one religion who may seem strong enough with backers to fight those Princes...
The problem you hit is that the Church a) was most of the Princes in the Empire; b) gave people in the Empire many reasons to hate it.
Hell, yes.
Last edited:
Depend on how things may turn. as the Protestant princes by example pick something like Calvinism and go as in the thread, harsh punitions, and maybe oddly you'd see peoples going at least 'the ennemies of my ennemies'..
You know, the Reformation's historiography, I always wondered if there was a certain pro Protestant bias in the analysis here at least and much of the official works of Anglosphere. From what I heard here and in other places, somes of those nations at least stayed more catholic in areas and parts of the peoples, less so pro Protestantism than said. Sweden by example got Lutherianised slower than said perhaps. (Poland may have been the reverse.)
And so on. The portrait may have been more complex, and things could have went differently for both sides perhaps.
Plenty of them did. Guess what? It was frequently popular, despite the modern tendency to see Calvinism as "evil dour guys all in black who hate fun".
Well to be fair fun is seen as a distraction form spiritual goals in many(if not most) religions.
Not that it usually matters much in practice...
But I agree that it isn't unlikely for Calvinism to spread into territories that became Lutheran in OTL. Especially if you consider that it was quite successful in our history.
Maybe if there was a different peasants' revolt?
One of the things Luther reacted strongly to was the violence of the uprising.
There's a strong tradition of reading his opposition to Muentzer and the rest as cynical. But something that comes through in Luther's writings is his discomfort with the use of arms. He argued very fiercely, yes ("What is God or conscience to the great Erasmus?") but he seemed to labor under a kind of fantasy that the persuasive power of his words would be able to transform church and society all by itself. (Perhaps no one would be more upset by the idea of there still being a specific "Lutheran" church 500 years on than him). So while there were critiques of late medieval society he had in common with Muentzer (a dislike of money-lending, for one) the idea of a mass movement to transform the society using force really unsettled him. And in an era where armies behaved the way they did, and where the peasant armies were showing themselves even less restrained than even that low standard, that honestly would have made sense.
Which is not to make points about either the moral justifications of the peasants' revolt (kinda a flamebait-y topic around here) or the personality flaws of Luther (also kinda flamebait-y, and which I concede freely).
It is merely to say that a major roadblock to Luther coming out differently on the peasants' revolt is its violence, and hence one thing you would probably have to change to move Luther in the direction of supporting it would be dialing that aspect of it down. Perhaps if instead they undertook something on the order of the Diggers' activities, and peasants just started working land denied them, or refusing their rents to their lords,and that then triggered an overreaching crackdown that shifted public opinion in the towns against the territorial princes, then something interesting would happen?
One of the things Luther reacted strongly to was the violence of the uprising.
There's a strong tradition of reading his opposition to Muentzer and the rest as cynical. But something that comes through in Luther's writings is his discomfort with the use of arms. He argued very fiercely, yes ("What is God or conscience to the great Erasmus?") but he seemed to labor under a kind of fantasy that the persuasive power of his words would be able to transform church and society all by itself. (Perhaps no one would be more upset by the idea of there still being a specific "Lutheran" church 500 years on than him). So while there were critiques of late medieval society he had in common with Muentzer (a dislike of money-lending, for one) the idea of a mass movement to transform the society using force really unsettled him. And in an era where armies behaved the way they did, and where the peasant armies were showing themselves even less restrained than even that low standard, that honestly would have made sense.
Which is not to make points about either the moral justifications of the peasants' revolt (kinda a flamebait-y topic around here) or the personality flaws of Luther (also kinda flamebait-y, and which I concede freely).
It is merely to say that a major roadblock to Luther coming out differently on the peasants' revolt is its violence, and hence one thing you would probably have to change to move Luther in the direction of supporting it would be dialing that aspect of it down. Perhaps if instead they undertook something on the order of the Diggers' activities, and peasants just started working land denied them, or refusing their rents to their lords,and that then triggered an overreaching crackdown that shifted public opinion in the towns against the territorial princes, then something interesting would happen?