9-2 Final Project Submission: Research Paper
The 1524-25 Peasant Revolt in Germany under the analysis of the Political lens
Brent Stone
Historical Lenses/Scholarship
Professor David Byrne
August 7th, 2022
The intent of this paper is to explore and analyze the political causes of the German peasant's revolt of 1524-25 (hereafter referred to as the GPR). Because this will be an analysis of various questions surrounding the causes of the GPR, satisfying curiosity is a part of the equation. Analysis is an important part of the answer itself and it is imperative if we are to better understand the causes of the GRP. The first item in this introduction is stating what the causes of the GPR were and giving some examples of political actions that led up to it. The next items of a preliminary nature after the introduction are asking good questions and then an examination of the backdrop.
As my research progressed, I eventually concluded that some very significant causes of the GPR were indeed political even if they were not as obvious as some religious causes. The GPR largely stemmed from political actions or inaction on the part of the nobility, although the GPR was not the intended result the nobility desired or planned on. The political actions of the nobility were a measured reaction to an array of ecclesiastical abuses. Some of these political causes were not overt or well-known and initially this caused me some befuddlement. But as usual, further research proved illuminating.
It is not hyperbole to say that the GPR has been extensively analyzed using the religious lens. And while the religious lens has its place, that place is not in this paper. The religious lens might make a cameo here and there, but this is an examination of the GPR using the political lens. Therefore, on the political path less traveled, we are, I feel, more likely to encounter more gaps than we might find if we were using the religious lens and we shall analyze these political gaps further.
Some examples, touched on here and expanded later, will suffice to describe the sort of political maneuvering and action that ensured that the political powers would, in the sixteenth century, have the upper hand over ecclesiastical powers. And this in turn would assist in giving birth to the GPR. The political examples here are very significant since, time out of mind, ecclesiastical powers had for the most part ruled political powers. An example of this which will be expanded later would be the struggle between Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory II.
To a greater or lesser degree, a few examples of political actions that helped turn the tide against ecclesiastical abuse and power are fitting. When the ecclesiastical powers demanded that Martin Luther be delivered to Rome, Fredrick the wise moved on young Emperor Charles V to protect Martin Luther who would later throw a wrench into the ecclesiastical machine. Luther would embolden the German princes who would then gain courage and resolve to present a list of grievances to Charles V regarding ecclesiastical abuses. This was a precursor to their protest at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530.
This giving of grievances on matters already decided by the Pope, but pressed by political powers would also, on the part of princes, unintentionally signify to the peasants that not only were religious reforms in the wind, but why not desperately needed political reforms? When it came out that the nobles would receive their desire in the form of ecclesiastical reform, and that any spiritual or political reforms for the peasants were not forthcoming, it is then easier to understand the peasant’s frustration.
It was also the political actions of Fredrick that protected Luther when the later was kidnapped and hidden in Wartburg Castle away from those who would have otherwise tried to kill him and suppress ensuing political and religious reforms.
As we shall see, the longstanding political action or inaction as evidenced by the twelve grievances of the peasants, egged on partly by unbalanced self-proclaimed clerics aspiring to political control, was another political cause of the GPR. The causes of the GPR are what this paper is about. Therefore, less time will be given to the reaction as to examining the origin. In brief, we can say for the present that reciprocal reactions worsened the situation and in essence were part of the initial cause or catalyst that led to a larger conflict. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. While the conclusion of the GPR will be touched on, the lion's share will go to the causes and to a lesser extent the initial reactions.
The order of this paper will be questions, a backdrop, the causes apparent in the backdrop, how the reactions of various parties involved escalated the conflict and then a brief conclusion of the GPR followed by a look at historiographical gaps. So far, I have not encountered much in the way of primary sources such as Erasmus who, I hoped, might have had some brief commentary on the German peasant's revolt. My search for primary sources is still ongoing. (Thus ends the introduction.)
~ Questions ~
Of course, specific questions are central. Better answers seem to proceed from better questions and there are several good questions to be introduced if we are to truly uncover the causes of the GPR in a comprehensive manner. What preliminary political movements and developments contributed to the peasant's revolt? What were the policies of the time? Further questions will include the following. What roles did key preliminary players wear? Politically speaking, was the revolt anticipated? How did political action or inaction contribute to the revolt? Who bore the most blame for the peasant's revolt?
~ Backdrop ~
What preliminary political developments contributed to the peasant's revolt?
Leopold Von Ranke makes an astute observation in chapter 6 (The German Peasant's revolt) of his book, History of the Reformation in Germany Vol. II
“Public order rests on two foundations – first, the stability of the governing body; secondly, the consent and accordance of public opinion with the established government; not, indeed, in every particular, which is neither possible nor even desirable, but with its general tenor. In every age and country there must be disputes concerning the administration of the government; but so long as the foundation of public confidence remains unshaken, the danger is not great. Opinions are in perpetual flux and perpetual progress, so long as a strong government is actuated by the same general spirit and feels the necessity of moving in the same direction, no violent convulsion need be feared.”1
Here, though from a religious history book, Von Ranke makes use of the political lens for laying the context behind which the GPR is better understood. In this quote, Leopold Von Ranke makes a brief case regarding stable governments, order and public opinion which, to my mind, is practically unassailable. The first is the stability of the established government or governments. The second is the consent of public opinion. If we look at insurrections and rebellions and revolts, we can find some commonalities when we look to the past.
In the French Revolution did instability of the government exist? Yes. Was there a loss of public opinion regarding the government in the eyes of the people? Most definitely. What about the American Revolution? In the case of the British government their governance of the colonies was in some respects quite slipshod. And certainly, there was a loss of positive public opinion (in the years after the Seven years' war) by the American colonies regarding the British crown.
In the case of the GPR, was there a gradual yet conspicuous discontinuance of former freedoms as well as an increase in unfair practices imposed by the government and the clergy? If so then this might certainly hint at a shift or change in the government's practices and policies and in how they dealt with the peasantry, whether unfairly or to a gross disadvantage to the peasants. We will find after examining the twelve grievances that there certainly was a gradual suppressive change in the ruling inclinations and actions of the nobility and political class.
To a lesser extent than ecclesiastical rulers, did the political rulers lose the consent of popular opinion? In some ways their governments, especially in the eyes of the peasants, were not stable and so we could answer in the affirmatory. How significant were these political changes? When we come to how the reactions of various parties involved escalated the conflict, we will have a look at the twelve grievances which will give us an idea as to the political changes that occurred over time.
At the risk of repeating myself, this paper is on the political causes of the GPR. Politics would be in the spotlight rather than being merely an aspect of this paper. This is not to say that aspects of other lenses will not show their faces. For example, Fredrick Engels uses the lens of economics to give us an idea of where some of the causes of the GPR came from and being economic or social in nature are not political but certainly they had eventual political ramifications. The use of socioeconomics is an aspect but not the topic currently in the spotlight. Fredrick Engels who was a co-laborer of Karl Marx does provide an interesting portrayal of socioeconomics that does play into the causes of the GPR.
“German industry had gone through a considerable process of growth in the 14 and 15th centuries.” Engels goes on to say that textiles and weaving had progressed and diversified. He states that, “There had arisen those branches of industry, which, approaching the finer arts, were nurtured by the demands for luxuries on the ecclesiastics and lay lords of the late Middle Ages.” Engels, in essence, lays a measure of the preliminary blame for the GPR on recent fineries demanded by the ecclesiastical powers of the day. On the one hand, communism, in a sense fathered by Marx and nurtured by Engel's in its infancy, was never arm in arm with religion in any manner.2 Communism and to a lesser extent, socialism, went to great lengths to hyperbolize the evils and excesses of religion. In some respects, communism did not have to belabor or perspire on this point. As Luther discovered on his 1st trip to Rome, religion on the one hand was not without its saints and heroes, modern and ancient. And on the other hand, religion was not without its scoundrels and leeches.
Engels is correct in that ecclesiastical powers desired and became use to various luxuries. Their abuses of power remained unchecked and were resented by many who wore political hats or crowns. It was in many respects the civil powers that endeavored to check the corruption of the ecclesiastical powers. An example of this would have been Duke George of Saxony who was a relative of Fredrick the Elector of Saxony. He was an increasingly harsh critic of Martin Luther and a true son of the ecclesiastical church. The oddity then is that at the Diet of Worms when the princes gave Charles V a list of their grievances, all of which had to do with ecclesiastical abuses, Duke George came up with his own list of twelve grievances. This was not something Charles V could sneeze at.
Here again we have political developments occurring as a reaction to ecclesiastical abuses. And the political reaction at the Diet of Worms, though for the better, would, in part result in the GPR. Duke George is an example of those in political circles wearing political crowns who used their political clout to strongly advocate for reforms in the church. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states the following...
“As Luther became a defined heretic and split with Rome, George turned against the reformers. As one of the Church's strongest supporters in Germany, he did all that he could to prevent the spread of Lutheranism into his territories. Even so he did not lose sight of the fact that there was a need for reform within the Church. When the German princes of the Empire presented the emperor with a list of grievances at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521, George included 12 additional complaints of his own against indulgences and annates. His opposition to Luther steadily increased as the Protestant movement grew.”
~ The causes apparent in the backdrop ~
How did political action or inaction contribute to the revolt? Part of the answer to this question will be when we review the twelve grievances of the peasants. One would think that it would be the clergy that would accuse the secular powers of abuse, and of course this did happen from time to time. But such was not the case in the years preceding the German peasant’s revolt. While the ecclesiastical powers did have good people such as John Von Staupitz, Luther’s mentor, who remained in their ranks, there was also enough corruption that the civil powers felt constrained to not only hope reforms were coming, but as Duke George and the other German princes just after the Diet of Worms, to do something about it.
It was a delicate situation. Crossing the will of a powerful ecclesiastical ruler was a very precipitous piece of ground on which to tread since the ecclesiastical powers demanded, expected and most often received unquestioning obedience. If such obedience was not forthcoming, then the pope, the supreme spiritual leader had the perceived ecclesiastical power to command a King, or an Emperor's subjects to disobey him in political matters.
In today's world, within the free countries in North American and different countries in Europe and other places within the free world, such power is hard to understand. In modernity, when freedom of religion is3 threatened (regardless of who is making the threats), figuratively speaking, the aggressor is, at the least, ostracized. Any chance that anyone will take them seriously as a right-thinking entity is gone. Of course, countries like China do not fall into this category. Communist China is rightfully regarded as a country that cares little for the freedoms of its citizens.
The communist party of China might, however, find a counterpart in the actions of some ecclesiastical leaders of the past. Of course, there have been kind and wonderful people of every language, in every age and in every place on the globe who accomplished an untold amount of good for others. People who did what they could to help the less fortunate. A few people who match this description would be William Wilberforce, George Mueller, Abraham Lincoln, Florence Nightengale, Gandhi and Mother Theresa. These people were not perfect but works in progress who did what they could to lift others up.
On the flip side, there have been people who have committed great evil, caused widespread misery and who have been the most pompous tyrants imaginable. It is to this class that people like Pope Gregory VII may belong. In December 1075, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV took it upon himself to decide who should be a Bishop within his realm and who should not. Pope Gregory VII communicated with Henry IV that this was not his prerogative. Henry IV in turn retaliated with a blistering letter to which Gregory VII informed Henry IV that his subjects were no longer required to obey him, which many of whom ceased to do. Later Gregory VIII would excommunicate Henry IV. The Medieval Sourcebook: Empire and Papacy on Encyclopedia.com has this to say.
“After Gregory excommunicated him, or removed him from the Church, Henry lost the support of his nobles. Therefore, in January 1077, in a symbolic act of humility and submission, he appeared at the castle of Canossa (kuh-NAH-suh) in northern Italy, where the pope was staying, and waited barefoot outside in the snow for hours until the pope forgave him. By then Henry was caught up in a war with the Duke of Swabia, a region in Germany, and Gregory tried to help the two settle the dispute; but in 1080, the same year that the Duke of Swabia defeated Henry, Gregory again excommunicated the emperor.”
In short, some ecclesiastics were good and decent people while others were, frankly, kind of nasty. But nasty or no, they held a lot of power and of course they often abused their power as Merle J.H D’aubigne brings out in his Introduction to the German Peasant’s revolt. (D’aubigne wrote a book called the History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century which in some versions is over one thousand pages long and that book was written using what was clearly a religious lens. He also wrote a short introduction to the GPR that was religious but clearly political in nature also, and the quotes here are portrayed as a political lens as much as a religious one.) This abusing of power, (and the political rulers were not guiltless) was to a large degree what brought about the German peasant’s revolt. As D’aubigne notes...
“A political ferment, very different from that produced by the Gospel, had long been at work in the empire. The people, bowed down by civil and ecclesiastical oppression, bound in many countries to the seigniorial estates, and transferred from hand to hand along with them, threatened to rise with fury and at last to break their chains.”
There had been seditions in the years leading up the German peasant’s revolt that had been decisively put down, but they paled in comparison with what was to come. The flurry of4 events and developments caused by the reformation, for a time, halted national or regional thoughts of rebellion. The unprecedented events of the reformation, from Luther nailing his 95 theses to the Castle church door of Wittenburg (October 1517) to the Diet of Worms (April 1521) was such a distraction that rebellion was, in the minds of many, temporarily on the back burner. Though many, in a sense rooted for Martin Luther, most people expected that Luther, like Jan Huss, a martyr from a hundred years before Luther’s time, would fall before the immense ecclesiastical power that had made Emperors tremble and that had burned perceived heretics.
When arriving at the Diet of Worms under the protection of Charles V, Luther’s reception was thunderous. Here was a national figure on the verge of accomplishing what so many desired.... reform. And among those who thirsted for reform were many of the powerful German princes such as Fredrick the Wise and Duke George of Saxony who came to oppose Luther but who also wrote out, along with the other princes, his grievances at the Diet of Worms. These were powerful princes of the realm and Charles V could not just ignore what they wanted.
And when Luther, largely from the political protection and discretion of Fredrick the Wise of Saxony, departed Worms safe and sound, little else could be talked about in the empire. D'aubigne informs his readers that of course rebellion did arise again, and Luther sought to bring a peaceful conclusion to the problem.
“Since the commencement of the Reformation, these popular disturbances had not been renewed; men's minds were occupied by other thoughts. Luther, whose piercing glance had discerned the condition of the people, had already addressed them from the summit of the Wartburg in serious exhortations calculated to restrain their agitated minds:”
This supposition is bolstered by 5 Tom Scott and Robert Scribner in their 1991 book, the German Peasant’s war (in the Shapiro Library). “The earliest grievances of the peasant rebels do not mention the religious issues of the evangelical movements sweeping Germany between 1520 and 1524, but there was undoubtedly a close connection between preaching the Gospel and social unrest.”
In a January 1521 letter from Luther to his mentor, John Von Staupitz, Luther expresses concerns that there could be widespread unrest and fighting as a result of his stance against the ecclesiastical powers of his day. (http://reverendluther.org/pdfs2/Diet-of-Worms-Papers.pdf)
Fearing that certain ecclesiastical ambitions involved Luther’s demise, Fredrick the Wise in a clandestine political move, secretly orchestrated Luther’s kidnapping and safe confinement in the Wartburg Castle. For a time, not even Fredrick knew where Luther was. And many people assumed for a while that Luther must have been disposed of when he did not return to Wittenburg and when news spread that he had been kidnapped. And yet, after a short time the steady flow of reformists writings convinced many that, Luther was in fact alive though hidden who knew where. Initially Luther’s attacks were not against the Pope but against those who claimed to represent him. Later when Luther perceived that the ecclesiastical system was implacable against any reforms, there was a definite parting of ways.
But the monolithic ecclesiastical system was appearing buckle or why would a diet, convened under the political authority of the emperor and the powerful German princes, have been called at all on a matter already decided by the Pope? And yet, that is what had happened. A political reaction to ecclesiastical abuses. Not surprisingly, this development, in the minds of many downtrodden portended that perhaps liberty closer to home was to be expected. If there6 were to be ecclesiastical reforms, then why not other equally important political reforms? And of course, there was not a short supply of people who claimed clerical authority who were willing to take advantage of the situation for their gain and for the fancy of their own ambitions.
~ How the reactions of various parties involved escalated the conflict ~
What roles did key preliminary players play? There is of course a variance in the number of key players involved in the GPR and we have mentioned some of them such as Fredrick the wise and Duke George. An example of zealots who in many respects led many peasants astray or to fanaticism were people like Thomas Munzer and others like him such as Heinrich Pfeiffer. Many people, mostly peasants, believed what many of these ambitious preachers taught. Munzer first came on the stage at Wittenburg when Luther was in Wartburg Castle. As noted earlier...
“Since the commencement of the Reformation, these popular disturbances had not been renewed; men's minds were occupied by other thoughts. Luther, whose piercing glance had discerned the condition of the people, had already addressed them from the summit of the Wartburg in serious exhortations calculated to restrain their agitated minds:”
After Luther was confined in Wartburg Castle and out of sight, a vacuum in his absence was felt and his young and talented friend Philip Melancton did not have the experience to deal with the developing crisis. Luther’s associate at Wittenburg, Andreas Karlstad tried to fill Luther’s shoes, but was too unsteady and gradually lost sight of the intent of Luther message. With Luther out of sight, the minds of peasants and scoundrels were certainly in agitation and open to suggestion. There had been much made of the reform Martin Luther had stood for, and naturally many supposed that further reforms were just around the corner.
D’aubigne again in his book (A short introduction to the peasant’s war) against shows Luther’s efforts to quell the rising agitation he was able to hear of even from Wartburg Castle. "Rebellion," he had said, "never produces the amelioration we desire, and God condemns it. What is it to rebel, if it is not to avenge oneself? The devil is striving to excite to revolt those who embrace the Gospel, in order to cover it with opprobrium; but those who have rightly understood my doctrine do not revolt. Everything gave cause to fear that the popular agitation could not be restrained much longer. The government that Frederick of Saxony had taken such pains to form, and which possessed the confidence of the nation, was dissolved.”
Disarray would be a better word than dissolved because of course order would return, albeit bloody and violent. D’aubigne continues. “The emperor, whose energy might have been an efficient substitute for the influence of this national administration, was absent; the princes whose union had always constituted the strength of Germany were divided; and the new7 declaration of Charles V against Luther, by removing every hope of future harmony, deprived the reformer of part of the moral influence by which in 1522 he had succeeded in calming the storm. The chief barriers that hitherto had confined the torrent being broken, nothing could any longer restrain its fury. It was not the religious movement that gave birth to political agitations; but in many places it was carried away by their impetuous waves.
The ecclesiastical abuses which the German princes reacted to had resulted in political action, and political action in part devolved into a situation that led to religious fanatical action. And the saying goes, the wheel had come full circle. D’aubigne continues.
“The claims of a few fanatics to divine inspiration increased the evil. While the Reformation had continually appealed from the pretended authority of the Church to the real authority of the holy Scriptures, these enthusiasts not only rejected the authority of the Church, but of the Scriptures also; they spoke only of an inner word, of an internal revelation from God;”
And Thomas Munzer along with a few followers came to Wittenburg in Luther’s absence and started claiming spiritual authority and making rash promises as well as demands that all heed their message. The friends of Luther such as Philip Melanchthon had been confused as to the best way to deal with Munzer. When Luther left Wartburg Castle disguised as knight George, he then returned to Wittenburg to face Munzer and the large following he had amassed. There had been so much sensationalism and of course Munzer had fed off this and insighted his followers with the same sentiments.
Many expected that Luther would denounce Munzer in thunderous tones, but instead, seeking to show that sensationalism was not the answer, Luther8 gave six very simple sermons. Many took the messages to heart though to many others it seemed that Luther’s humble manner and six simple sermons did promise anything in the way of the reforms they so desired and deserved. Thus, many were drawn away by fanatics like Munzer who claimed to have recourse to the reforms the peasants had long desired.
In his book, The Peasant’s war in Germany, Ernest Belfort Bax makes some interesting points. “Like all other movements of the time, that of the peasants and small townsmen had a strong infusion of religious sentiment based on Christian theology. It was, it is true, primarily a social and economic agitation, but it had a strong religious coloring. The invocation of Christian doctrine and Biblical sentiment was no mere external flourish but formed part of the essence of the movement.”
Bax at first appears to write using a religious lens, but it must be remembered that want and privation were part of the driving force of the GPR and that Bax is attributing part of the GPR to social and economic agitation. He is using the social and economic lens to show, among other things, what some of the genuine motivations of the peasants were.
In an article in the American Historical Review within the Shapiro library, the following candid observations are attributed to Marc Bloch and it is easy to see that Bloch viewed this from an economic lens. “Mark Bloch likened peasants' agitation within the seigneurial economy of the Middle Ages to strikes in industrial capitalism-normal components of a system of production and exploitation of two struggles in such different parts of Europe raise questions about peasant motivations and elite attitudes that cross physical and confessional boundaries.”
Here we have again a semblance or referral to the GPR as to its motivation. Hunger, injustice and the sense that political or religious reforms were not forthcoming when the nobility had largely secured religious reforms within their domiciles and “gated” communities were, in retrospect, to the peasants, an intolerable situation. And again, it took a few scoundrels and religious charlatans to light the fuse.
In Tom Scott and Robert W, Scribner’s 1991 book, ‘The German Peasant’s war,’ the place and time (June 1524) are given for the outbreak of the GPR. The lens through which this event is described would be the social lens. “It is appropriate to include a lengthy extract from the peasant's articles in the small Balck Forest territory of Stuhlingen for two reasons: the revolt first broke out there in June 1524 and spread widely throughout the region, setting off a chain reaction of rural and urban rebellion over the next twelve months;”
It must be remembered that Munzer was most successful in the region of Muhlhausen and in that area he was, for a time, a sort of sovereign. Other areas of German such as Franconia and9 southern Germany had no use for his teaching, but that general agitation was rife in many other places. Bax has more to say regarding the general agitation and the lens he uses is the social lens since social conflicts between the nobility and the peasants were at its height.
“Indeed, the south Germans appear to have been averse to any definite utopistic idealism such as that of Thomas Munzer and appear to have confined themselves strictly to the limits of the celebrated 12 articles. In the “twelve articles” we have expressed undoubtedly the ideas10 and11 aspirations of the average man throughout German who took part in the movement. What went12 beyond these demands was mere vague sentiment, in which possibly the average man share but which did not take definite shape in his mind.”
It would be good at this point to have a look at the twelve articles. Leopolde Von Ranke, who wrote on this point with what seems to correlate more to the social lens, in his book on the GPR, states that the twelve articles boil down to three basic kinds of demands. It is worth noting that these are ecclesiastical as well as temporal and political demands. It would also help answer the question of whether political and civic policies had truly undergone a significant change. Undoubtedly the twelve articles were predicated on some of the same kind of reforms Luther had advocated and that had been in circulation for some time up to this point. Von Ranke mentions three basic kinds of demands and they are a prelude to the twelve articles below and they comprise the lenses of economics, social reform and politics.
Liberty of the chase
Release from newly imposed burdens, new laws, and penalties.
The desire for religious reform in their choosing their own preachers.
1. Every town and village shall be entitled to elect and to dismiss its preacher if he misbehaves. The preacher shall preach the gospel simply, straight and clear, without any human additions, for it is written that we can only attain God through true faith.
2. The preachers shall be paid by the great tithe. Any surplus shall be used to help the village poor and pay the war tax. The small tithe shall be abolished, for it was invented by humans, for the Lord, our God, created livestock free for mankind.
3. Until now it has been the practice that we have been treated like serfs, which is deplorable, since Christ redeemed all of us with his precious blood, both the shepherd and the nobleman, with no exceptions. Accordingly, we hereby declare that we are free and want to remain free.
4. It is unbrotherly and not in accordance with the word of God that the poor man is not entitled to hunt game or fowl, or to fish. Since the time God our Lord created man, he gave him power over all beasts, the birds in the air and the fish in the water.
5. The nobles took sole possession of the forest. When the poor man needs something, he must buy it for twice its price. Consequently, all the forests that were not bought (meaning former community forests, which many rulers had simply appropriated) shall be returned to the village so that anybody can satisfy his needs therefrom for timber and firewood.
6. The excessive compulsory labor demanded of us, which grows from day to day, should be reduced to the amount that our parents used to perform, according to God's word.
7. The nobility shall not force us to perform more compulsory labor than was agreed upon. (It was common for nobles to raise unilaterally the compulsory labor they demanded of their serfs.)
8. Many fields cannot produce enough to pay the rent demanded for them. Honest men shall inspect these lands and set a fair amount of rent for them, so that farmers need not work for free, because each day's work deserves its pay.
9. New laws are constantly being made to impose new fines. Punishments are not being meted out depending on the offence but instead in an arbitrary fashion (raising fines and arbitrary judgments were common). In our opinion we should be judged in accordance with the old written law, according to the case's merits, instead of on a whim.
10. Many nobles have appropriated meadows and fields belonging to the towns (commons, which were at the disposal of all townspeople). We want them returned to all of us in common.
11. The “Todfall” (a sort of inheritance tax) shall be abolished altogether and never again shall widows and orphans be shamefully robbed contrary to God and honor.
12. It is our decision and final opinion that if one or more of the articles listed herein contradict God's word ... we shall rescind them if it is explained to us based on what is written. If any articles were already granted to us and it emerges afterwards that they were unjust, then they shall be null and void. Likewise, all this is subject to the condition that if additional articles are found here written that are against God and a grievance by some other person.
If we look at the twelve articles alone, we can see that certainly that there were changes in the policies regarding the peasants over the years in their ill-treatment by the nobles and the political class. This leads to another question that has not really been answered. How did political action or inaction contribute to the revolt? Political inaction was such that abuses were instituted that the poor people had no defense against. If a noble wanted to appropriate what had been a community forest, what could the peasants do? They would then have to get their game somewhere else if that was even possible. If a noble decided to take a field or meadow for his own use, then the peasants were practically powerless. Political action, it seems, had become take what you want, and political inaction seemed to be that nothing would be done to address what would merely be consequences not for those committing the offense, but for those who had no or little recourse.
~ Conclusion ~
It makes sense that the peasants went to war and the rights they demanded were certainly reasonable and fair. D’abigne states in his short introduction to the German Peasant’s revolt that the peasants under misguided zealots like Munzer, slaughtered many nobles and the nobles in turn slaughtered many peasants when ordinarily beneficent nobles like Philip of Hess effectively put down much of the revolt in their locale. Estimates of the death toll of the German Peasant’s revolt are in the 100,000 range and considering their twelve demands it is amazing that their demands could not have been met. It does sort of show that both the nobility and the ecclesiastical powers were out of touch. And yet judging the German peasant’s revolt by the modern standards of civilization isn’t really a solution.
Was the GPR anticipated? Sadly, the answer seems to be negatory. The only person who seems to have anticipated it was Martin Luther. This was a man who challenged the highest and most powerful ecclesiastical system the world has ever known and yet foreseeing in some measure the coming woe of the GPR could do little to effect it. And really, who could? Who bore the most blame for the peasant's revolt? I guess you could say that the blame lay equally between the nobles and the clergy. It would not be accurate to say that Charles V was more to blame or Leo XI. And the political causes of the German peasant’s revolt? The inaction for so many years on the part of the nobles and political class regarding the rights and freedoms of the peasants was certainly at fault, though of course, at that time there was no precedent for civil mercies extended to law breakers and disturbers of the peace as there is, for the most part in modernity. And the action on the part of the German princes whose list of grievances to Charles V basically got the ball rolling though not in the desired direction.
~ Historiographical gaps ~
Being as this has been a paper on the political causes of the GPR, there should be some gaps to notice before the paper is concluded. And while I have, of course, not read everything on the subject, there were items that scholarship has not addressed. There are some issues wherein I have not witnessed a treatise from scholars about within the context of the GPR and I touched on some of them briefly.
One discrepancy I noticed was how no scholars cover the fact that no one seems to have explained to the peasants from the get-go that no reforms whatsoever were to be expected or afforded them. Martin Luther seems to have been the only person who recognized that any sort of tumult was to be expected, and unlike the political class who seemed so shortsighted, only he saw the danger and when he sought to quell that rising storm, the political class did not take noticed of, and I have not really seen this precursor addressed by any of the scholarship I researched prior to and during the writing of this paper. Clearly the peasants wanted reforms and so the nobles either missed it or did not care enough. It is probable that the latter was the latter was more accurate.
Another item in the reading I undertook before and during the writing of this paper was that I felt the scholars didn't address was how similar, in some respects the French Revolution was to the GPR. The comparison might be there somewhere, but I did not encounter it. There was a very similar rage over the callousness and indifference of the nobles in France as there was in Germany. But because of how France as a government was set up with the three estates, and how some in the holy orders slipped into the 3rd estate, thereby affecting the balance of power, the common class of people were able to throw off the yoke of the nobles. From the onset of this paper, once I understood the details better and had yet to accomplish much more research, I would have expected that some parallels would have been drawn. Perhaps this is not so much of a gap as an unexpected lack of commonalities between two similar groups and people and situations. And again, maybe the comparison is out there, but I did not come across it.
This strongly hints that, of course, there are areas of the peasant’s revolt that could use more research, and commonalities would be in that picture as well as parallels to other revolts or rebellions or wars. If there are gaps, then it follows that research along those lines is more than a suggestion, but a necessity. As usual, further research often proves illuminating. It might be accurate to say that fewer scholars are examining the GPR using the political lens rather than other lenses and while a lot of my sources such as D’aubigne are religious writers, they have given a good political picture regarding the why and how of the GPR. And although I have used the political lens, it has not been without results or gaps to be considered. While I have mentioned gaps, my argument has come to a similar conclusion in that more research would not hurt, and that the political actions and inaction of the political elite were the reactions against ecclesiastical abuses on the one hand and severe neglect on the other. Other scholars have shown that neglect and injustice was a problem. This difference as far as I can see is that I have used politics to bring this out, and that this paper was not a bad journey to that point.
Sources:
1. "Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII ." Middle Ages Reference Library. . Encyclopedia.com. (July 28, 2022). https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/emperor-henry-iv-and-pope-gregory-vii
2. D'Aubigne, J.H (Jean Henri) A short introduction to the Peasant's war in Germany, Didactic Press. (2014) (Kindle Edition)
3. "George (The Bearded) of Saxony ." New Catholic Encyclopedia. . Encyclopedia.com. (July 28, 2022). https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/george-bearded-saxony
4. Bax, Ernest Belfort, The Peasants War in Germany, 1525-1526, London S. Sonnenschein (1899) https://archive.org/details/peasantswaringer00baxeuoft/page/n3/mode/2up
5. Von Ranke, Leopold, History of the Reformation in Germany, (Translated by Sarah Austin) Vol. II, Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, London (1845) https://archive.org/details/historyreformat00rankgoog/page/202/mode/2up?view=theater
6. Engels, Fredrick, The Peasant War in Germany, Lawrence and Wishart, (1850) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/ch01.htm
7. Scott, Tom, and Robert W. Scribner. The German Peasants’ War. Amherst, N.Y.: Humanity Books, 1991. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=2090562&site=eds-live&scope=site.
8. Freedman, Paul. 1993. “The German and Catalan Peasant Revolts.” The American Historical Review 98 (1): 39–54. doi:10.2307/2166381.
