5 ms·

Luther did not first nail his thesis to the door, he mailed them first, and had no intention of starting anything. Nailing things to a church door was common pr

Luther did not first nail his thesis to the door, he mailed them first, and had no intention of starting anything. Nailing things to a church door was common practice so that others could read things (no newspapers). Also Luther was only one of thousands of priests, bishops and monks who complained the Popes at the time were ignoring the faith and the people (which they were). He didn't invent Protestantism, he's just more famous than the others.

javert 5y ago
Complaining to the Pope is not equivalent to taking the further enormous leap of breaking away from the Catholic Church. I don't know the history and would love for someone to fill me in, but I'm just not convinced that you are right to downplay Luther's role.
AlanSE 5y ago
I just finished reading this book, and the point I'm making comes almost directly from that. https://www.twelvebooks.com/titles/patrick-wyman/the-verge/9781538701171/ https://www.twelvebooks.com/titles/patrick-wyman/the-verge/9... Luther grew up in a mining community, where people where crass and confrontational. He had a frank, direct, and powerful rhetorical style that was forged in that environment. While he had several career options, a lightning strike made him get superstitious and become a monk. He was good at it. Take these 2 things - book smarts and an argumentative edge, and now a new twist enters the story... The printing press! The printers were in it to make money. His impact on history wasn't nailing a thing to a church door. The guy ran circles around the Church defenders because he replied quick, effectively, and he was the darling of the printers who controlled the medium. It's not just about having the best argument, it's about fitting the format of the medium. Luther would deliver retorts in the space and time frame that the printers wanted. You can easily imagine how this would drown out the defenders of the Church (especially since it's salacious) and impact public opinion. But that phase only lasted so-many years. Before long, the situation got out of his control, and that's kind of when you might say Protestantism started.
- krsdcbl 5y ago
  today you could very well say he was a media-savvy influencer
- Archelaos 5y ago
  > and now a new twist enters the story... > The printing press! Not quite so new. At the time Luther published his 95 Theses in 1517 the printing press with movable types has been around pretty much as long as the computer has been around for us in 2021: for three quarters of a century.
  - est31 5y ago
    And we are still not done computerizing society.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  That explanation is fun, and not exactly wrong, but there were many factors brewing, and attempts at just about every part of what we call the Reformation had been attempted on some level in the hundred years preceding except perhaps the allied states' standard against the HRE. Most acute factors were probably the combination of the financial crisis, simony, absent bishops, Medici cultural and political influence over Rome, peasant revolts and prior attempts at schism or reformation, discontent between German princes and HRE, increasing prevalence and affordability of printing which promulgated new understandings of Aristotle and Augustine in addition to enabling more widespread publication of dissent. It's a rich topic, certainly worth reading extensively about; I'll be sure to check out the book you linked.
  - AlanSE 5y ago
    I was listening to some podcast episode from the author Patrick Wyman. He was doing an interview with Mike Duncan(?) in a very casual way. I really latched onto a point about Martin Luther - that his personality traits directly affected the course of events toward the Reformation as we know it. History is probably a lot more chaotic than we give it credit for. Whenever an upheaval happens and the world gets turned upside down, we can always go back and trace structural trends in that direction. This fails to capture how many transformations failed to happen. Printing was getting more affordable, but the printers themselves couldn't stop going out of business. The technology arc of lowering costs, but that doesn't map directly to profits and they just kept going bankrupt. I'm really fascinated by the role of pamphlets. We keep talking about the press in the context of books, but Luther's legacy wasn't in publishing full-length books. This has come up again and again through history. In the 1600s, pamphlets played a role in the English revolution, and it did in the French Revolution as a whole universe of revolution presses sprung up. Were these like newspapers? Or was it some shorter and more targeted form of political hit piece? Luther came out dropping rhetorical bombs. I get how reading stuff can radicalize you. I've felt that energy in my own life, but overwhelming volume of media we get combined with our longer life spans does some intellectual inoculation. I can only imagine the anger that could be stoked with the written word at that time. It's not a forgone conclusion, because most people are garbage at writing convincingly.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Luck is a key component in success. That doesn't mean success, or those who succeed, aren't successful. Or don't serve as icons for the movements or initiatives they are known for. There are many flaws with the Great Man theory of history. But reflexive rubbishing of it serves little use either. Better is to have an understanding of what factors contributed to a breakthrough. And if that is chance, luck, timing, or a coincidental confluence of factors including emergent technologies, then yes, give those credit. Real history is complex. It doesn't fit on postcards. Any less-than-comprehensive account is a map, not the territory. Maps remain useful.

javert 5y ago

Complaining to the Pope is not equivalent to taking the further enormous leap of breaking away from the Catholic Church. I don't know the history and would love for someone to fill me in, but I'm just not convinced that you are right to downplay Luther's role.

AlanSE 5y ago

I just finished reading this book, and the point I'm making comes almost directly from that. https://www.twelvebooks.com/titles/patrick-wyman/the-verge/9781538701171/ https://www.twelvebooks.com/titles/patrick-wyman/the-verge/9... Luther grew up in a mining community, where people where crass and confrontational. He had a frank, direct, and powerful rhetorical style that was forged in that environment. While he had several career options, a lightning strike made him get superstitious and become a monk. He was good at it. Take these 2 things - book smarts and an argumentative edge, and now a new twist enters the story... The printing press! The printers were in it to make money. His impact on history wasn't nailing a thing to a church door. The guy ran circles around the Church defenders because he replied quick, effectively, and he was the darling of the printers who controlled the medium. It's not just about having the best argument, it's about fitting the format of the medium. Luther would deliver retorts in the space and time frame that the printers wanted. You can easily imagine how this would drown out the defenders of the Church (especially since it's salacious) and impact public opinion. But that phase only lasted so-many years. Before long, the situation got out of his control, and that's kind of when you might say Protestantism started.

krsdcbl 5y ago
today you could very well say he was a media-savvy influencer
Archelaos 5y ago
> and now a new twist enters the story... > The printing press! Not quite so new. At the time Luther published his 95 Theses in 1517 the printing press with movable types has been around pretty much as long as the computer has been around for us in 2021: for three quarters of a century.
- est31 5y ago
  And we are still not done computerizing society.
1123581321 5y ago
That explanation is fun, and not exactly wrong, but there were many factors brewing, and attempts at just about every part of what we call the Reformation had been attempted on some level in the hundred years preceding except perhaps the allied states' standard against the HRE. Most acute factors were probably the combination of the financial crisis, simony, absent bishops, Medici cultural and political influence over Rome, peasant revolts and prior attempts at schism or reformation, discontent between German princes and HRE, increasing prevalence and affordability of printing which promulgated new understandings of Aristotle and Augustine in addition to enabling more widespread publication of dissent. It's a rich topic, certainly worth reading extensively about; I'll be sure to check out the book you linked.
- AlanSE 5y ago
  I was listening to some podcast episode from the author Patrick Wyman. He was doing an interview with Mike Duncan(?) in a very casual way. I really latched onto a point about Martin Luther - that his personality traits directly affected the course of events toward the Reformation as we know it. History is probably a lot more chaotic than we give it credit for. Whenever an upheaval happens and the world gets turned upside down, we can always go back and trace structural trends in that direction. This fails to capture how many transformations failed to happen. Printing was getting more affordable, but the printers themselves couldn't stop going out of business. The technology arc of lowering costs, but that doesn't map directly to profits and they just kept going bankrupt. I'm really fascinated by the role of pamphlets. We keep talking about the press in the context of books, but Luther's legacy wasn't in publishing full-length books. This has come up again and again through history. In the 1600s, pamphlets played a role in the English revolution, and it did in the French Revolution as a whole universe of revolution presses sprung up. Were these like newspapers? Or was it some shorter and more targeted form of political hit piece? Luther came out dropping rhetorical bombs. I get how reading stuff can radicalize you. I've felt that energy in my own life, but overwhelming volume of media we get combined with our longer life spans does some intellectual inoculation. I can only imagine the anger that could be stoked with the written word at that time. It's not a forgone conclusion, because most people are garbage at writing convincingly.

dredmorbius 5y ago

Luck is a key component in success. That doesn't mean success, or those who succeed, aren't successful. Or don't serve as icons for the movements or initiatives they are known for. There are many flaws with the Great Man theory of history. But reflexive rubbishing of it serves little use either. Better is to have an understanding of what factors contributed to a breakthrough. And if that is chance, luck, timing, or a coincidental confluence of factors including emergent technologies, then yes, give those credit. Real history is complex. It doesn't fit on postcards. Any less-than-comprehensive account is a map, not the territory. Maps remain useful.