§ 7 The Peasants’ War
Causes of the Peasants’ War.
While these momentous issues were being decided in Italy, Germany had been the scene of a serious outbreak which threatened the whole structure of society. The causes of the Peasants’ Revolt were primarily social. Even before the appearance of Luther, we hear of the ‘Bundschuhe’ and other organisations of the peasants, and of revolts against their lords. Their grievances were those common to the villein class in all feudal societies; heavy services and dues, oppressive sporting rights, and enclosure of common lands by their lords. From the first, indeed, the higher clergy were specially marked out for attack. The bishop and the abbot united in their own persons the position of spiritual superior and feudal lord. As feudal lords, they levied dues, exacted services, and tried offenders in their courts. As ecclesiastical superiors, they claimed the tithes, punished ecclesiastical offences in their ecclesiastical courts, and threatened excommunication on the impenitent or recalcitrant. Moreover, the heavy contributions demanded of them by Rome, forced them to exact their dues to the full. Yet, at first, there was no connection between these social grievances and the religious discontent. It was, however, inevitable that in time they should become identified. The more fanatical teachers of the new doctrines, such as Carlstadt, were attracted to the movement. They appealed to Scripture as justifying the revolt, and taught the peasants to interpret the spiritual injunctions of the Gospel literally, and to fight for religious and political freedom and for social equality under the same banner. Thus in Germany, as elsewhere, the religious motive came to the front, gave expression to misery as yet inarticulate, and furnished the malcontents with a gospel.
The Revolt in the Black Forest. May, 1524.
The eastern districts of the Black Forest, between the watersheds of the Rhine and Danube, were the first to rise in May 1524. Their views were comparatively moderate, and were subsequently formulated in ‘The Twelve Articles.’ In this document, after an appeal to Scripture in justification of their demands, they claimed the right of electing their own ministers, and asked for the abolition of the lesser tithe, for liberty of chase, fishing, and hewing wood, the commutation of personal serfdom, the reduction of villein services and dues, the restoration of communal rights. The revolt was even here accompanied by some violence, but if it had been met by a spirit of conciliation on the part of the lords, and of firmness on the part of the government, it probably could have been arrested. The nobles, however, clung to their privileges; the Council was incapable, and Ferdinand was concentrating his energies on supplying troops and money for the Italian campaign.
The disturbances accordingly increased rapidly during the autumn of 1524; and by February, 1525,Spread of the Revolt. they had spread to the whole of Germany, from the left bank of the Rhine to the Tyrol, and from the lake of Constance to Thuringia and Saxony. The claims of the peasants became more extreme, the more moderate lost control, and the fanatics or the designing assumed the lead.
The rebels of Franconia and Thuringia.
In Franconia, amidst violent excesses, we find the demands for social reform connected with a scheme of political reconstitution of the Empire on a democratic basis—a scheme which betrays the hand of a more educated mind. But it was in Thuringia and the district round the Harz mountains that the extravagance reached its climax. The leader, Thomas Münzer, taught doctrines which were subversive of all authority in Church and State, and of the existing conditions of society. Received at Mülhausen in Thuringia as a prophet, he proposed to make that town the seat of his authority, whence he should rule his kingdom according to revelation.
Social Anarchy threatened.
For a moment the social fabric of Germany was imperilled. On all sides the peasants triumphed. The nobles were either driven from their strongholds or forced to join the leagues as ‘brothers.’ The smaller towns, many of which suffered from the same oppressions as the peasants—even some of the lesser imperial cities—joined the movement. Ulrich of Würtemberg seized the opportunity to attempt a recovery of the dominions which he had forfeited by misrule (cf. p. 131), and called the rebels to his aid.
Causes of failure of the Revolt.
Germany was indeed threatened with anarchy; yet it is doubtful whether the peasants had any chance of permanent success. The leaders were for the most part visionary and ignorant fanatics. Münzer was neither a prophet, nor a general, and the rebels had no effective organisation. Moreover, the middle classes, led by Luther, declared against them. Luther at first had preached moderation and reconciliation. While condemning the revolts against authority as contrary to divine law, he had rebuked the Princes and the lords for their oppression, and urged them to redress the grievances of their villeins. The extravagance of the peasants, however, shortly disgusted and frightened him. He disliked their views, and feared lest his own position and work might be compromised. He pointed out that the spiritual principles of Christianity might not without peril be transferred to the sphere of society and politics; and that, if the gospel demands the freedom of the soul, it does not thereby emancipate the body from the control of law. He denounced the rebels with his usual violence of language, and bade the authorities cast away all scruple, and ‘stab and kill and strangle’ without mercy.
The defeat of Leipheim. April 4.
At this moment the news of the victory of Pavia strengthened the cause of order. The Suabian League took up arms against Duke Ulrich. The Swiss, who had at first shown some sympathy with the peasants, and had supported the Duke, now withdrew their contingent, partly on account of disturbances at home, partly from fear of Charles’ vengeance, and Ulrich was forced to beat a hasty retreat. On April 4, the army of the League inflicted a decisive defeat on the peasants at Leipheim, near Ulm. On the 15th of May, the Princes, once more led by Philip of Hesse, crushed the army of Münzer near Frankenhausen. Münzer was taken prisoner and was executed at Mülhausen. The Duke of Lorraine took Zabern in Alsace, and restored order in the Vosges. The reduction of the city of Wurzburg by the united forces of the Suabian League, of the Elector of Trèves, and of the Elector Palatine on June 7, decided the fortunes of Franconia; and shortly after, the peasants of the Upper Rhine and the Black Forest either came to terms, or were crushed. The Princes and the nobles, once more masters, rivalled the cruelties of the rebels. Numbers of unfortunate peasants were cut down without mercy, and the grievances of the survivors remained, with a few exceptions, unredressed.
Effect of the Peasants’ Revolt on the Reformation.
But although the peasants failed in their attempt, the effect of the revolt upon the course of the Reformation was profound. The utter incapacity of the Council had been once more displayed, while the defeat of the peasants had saved Germany from religious and social anarchy. Of the four possible results of the Lutheran movement which we have indicated above (p. 165), two alone now remained. The question was whether Charles would succeed in completely re-establishing his authority, or whether the spirit of territorialism would be too strong for him. The cause of the Princes had indeed been strengthened. Once more, as in the case of the Knights’ War, they had asserted their power, and, with the Suabian League, had shown themselves the real masters of the country. Luther had lost to some extent the support of the lower classes, and was forced to lean still more upon the Princes. Yet the position of the Emperor was most threatening. The opponents of Luther, with scant justice, laid the responsibility of the disturbances to his charge, and many of the more timid and refined were alienated from his cause. Charles himself became still more convinced that heresy and rebellion were synonymous. He was determined therefore to crush out heresy, and the victory of Pavia seemed to offer him a brilliant opportunity. All depended upon what the issue of that victory should be.
a. The extraordinary number of principalities into which Germany was divided.
b. The division of the dominions of the greater princes among branches of the same family, many of whom took opposite sides. This will be best seen from the following table:—
| PROTESTANT. | CATHOLIC. | ||||||
| House of Wettin, in Saxony. | |||||||
| Ernestine, Electoral Branch at Wittenberg. | Albertine, at Meissen. | ||||||
| Ernest, 1464–1468. | Albert, 1485–1500. | ||||||
| Frederick the Wise, 1486–1525. | Duke George, 1500–1535. | ||||||
| John, his brother, 1525–1532. | Henry, his brother, 1535–1541, becomes Protestant. | ||||||
| John Frederick. 1532–1554. | Maurice, 1541–1553, secures the Electorate. | ||||||
| Hohenzollern. | |||||||
| Younger Branches. | Electoral Branch. | ||||||
| (1) Albert of Prussia, Grand Master of Teutonic Order, 1512–1568. Secularises his Duchy, 1525. | Albert Achilles, 1470–1486. | ||||||
| John Cicero, 1485–1499. | |||||||
| (2) Albert Alcibiades, Margrave of Culmbach, 1536–1557. | |||||||
| Joachim I., 1499–1535. | |||||||
| (3) John of Küstrin, Margrave of Neumark, brother of Joachim II., 1571. | |||||||
| Joachim II., 1535–1571. Becomes Protestant in 1539, though he never breaks with the Emperor. | |||||||
| Wittelsbach. | |||||||
| (1) Bavaria. Munich. | |||||||
| Albert II., 1460–1508. | |||||||
| William I., 1508–1550. | |||||||
| (2) Palatinate. | |||||||
| Frederick the Victorious, 1451–1476. | |||||||
| Philip, his nephew, 1476–1508. | |||||||
| Lewis V., 1508–1544. | |||||||
| Frederick II., his brother, 1544–1556, becomes Protestant. | |||||||
| Welf. | |||||||
| Duke Ernest I., of Luneburg, 1532–1541. | Duke Henry IV., of Wolfenbüttel, 1514–1568. | ||||||
| Wurtemberg. | |||||||
| Ulrich I., 1503–1550, became Protestant 1534. | |||||||
c. The number of ecclesiastical states. The three great electoral archbishoprics of Trèves, Mayence, Cologne—with the bishoprics of Metz on the Moselle, and Strasburg and Worms—so dominated the upper Rhine and its tributaries as to give it the name of Priest Street. The dioceses of Utrecht, Bremen, Münster, and Paderborn stretched in an almost continuous line along the north-west. To these we must add Hildesheim, Halberstadt, Magdeburg, Würzburg, Bamberg in central Germany; and in the south, the archbishopric of Salzburg, and the bishopric of Trent. The existence of these numerous ecclesiastical principalities had a twofold effect. It caused a strong feeling in Germany against papal exactions, of which the bishoprics were the victims, or the agents; while the desire on the part of the Princes to extend their dominions by secularising these ecclesiastical states, had a potent influence on many an Elector and Prince, both Catholic and Protestant. In many cases, too, the bishops were the relations of the Princes, and their policy was guided by family interests or rivalries.
Cause of the quarrel between Francis and Bourbon.—Charles, Count of Montpensier had been allowed by Louis XII. to marry Susanna, the heiress of Duke Peter of Bourbon. After the death of his wife without children, the Queen-mother, Louise of Savoy, claimed some of his possessions as niece of Duke Peter. Francis, with better right, demanded the restoration of others in fulfilment of Duke Peter’s original promise, that in default of male issue he would leave all the alienable possessions of his House to the Crown.
Notes
42 Cf. Cambridge Modern History, ii. 416.
43 On this point cf. Armstrong, Charles V., II. c. iii.
44 To understand the future course of the Reformation in Germany, it is necessary to study the map, and note—
45 He was Lord of 2 principalities, 2 duchies, 4 counties, 2 viscounties, and 7 lordships. See Map of France.