5 ms·
German Peasants' War
- constantius 3mo agoAn episode of history I had never heard about. 100-300,000 peasants killed. As someone who reads a lot about the early history of religion, the most interesting part of this for me was the role of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism: "In Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, Luther condemned the violence as the devil's work and called for the aristocrats to put down the rebels like mad dogs". My study of history of Christianity had left Protestantism relatively unscathed up to now. Well, no longer.
- wolfi1 2mo agothe protestants have a long history of violence, beginning with the persecution of the Anabaptists, the witch burning and even running concentration camps for the Nazis (KZ Kuhlen), they are not really unscathed
- cenamus 2mo agoSame for the Hussites in Bohemia (although a bit earlier, but pretty similar). With Jan Žižka they also had arguably one of the best commanders in history, up there with Alexander and Hanibal
- constantius 2mo agoNo religion is unscathed: joining with the powers that be and lagging behind every ethical development is the rule, for sure, but I had mistakenly believed that at least the founding had been devoid of the usual hypocrisies and blood. Alas.
- croes 2mo agoI can recommend The White Ribbon by Michael Haneke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Ribbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Ribbon
- a2800276 2mo agoJust wait until you get to the part concerning Luther's attitude towards the jews...
- Arodex 2mo agoOr Geneva under Calvin... https://www.contretemps.eu/geneve-temps-calvin-theocratie-dictature-dune-bourgeoisie-immature/ https://www.contretemps.eu/geneve-temps-calvin-theocratie-di...
- andrepd 2mo ago> Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. Romans 13. Is it any surprise that such a religion has consistently, throughout the centuries, been on the side of the rich and powerful, of the lords and emperors, the reactionaries of all stripes?
- kasey_junk 2mo agoThere goes Paul being Paul.
- adamtaylor_13 2mo agoOurs is a religion of submission to God, literally calling upon us to "pick up your cross daily." Which is, to die to yourself in submitting to God's will. Various books of the Bible were written to very specific peoples at specific times, but at the same time, to all Christians everywhere. It takes wisdom to discern to which group does an instruction apply, and when? This isn't to say that under no circumstances can you break the law; consider Christians in countries where Christianity is unlawful, they consistently break the law and defy the government because submission to God supersedes submission to government. This passage specifically establishes that building a "Christian Caliphate" is not a goal of Christianity nor should it be a goal of any individual Christian. In general, the government is an institution put in place by God. The general principle is that God is sovereign, so by resorting to violence to assert yourself and your rights you are in no small way asserting your own will over His. Books have been written on this, so I'll stop here. If you're interested, you can to much deeper on this. I just wanted to clarify the drive-by theology indicating Christians are somehow "siding" with the "elite" is a very poor understanding of the scripture and ignores basically all of history.
- rsynnott 2mo agoI mean, see also Cromwell. There’s a natural tendency to try to sort historical conflicts into good and bad. The reformation and counter-reformation were very much bad v. bad. But they did ultimately produce change which was probably, on balance, good.
- draw_down 2mo ago[dead]
- jrmg 2mo ago‘Q’ by the pseudonymous ‘Luther Blissett’ is a great historical fiction book about the period that really gets into what was happening in Europe in the 16th century. The Peasants’ War isn’t even the half of it. European Christian history is brutal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(novel) https://www.alibris.com/Q-Luther-Blissett-pse/book/5481947 https://www.alibris.com/Q-Luther-Blissett-pse/book/5481947 Bonus fact: some believe that the ‘Q’ of ‘Q’ is the inspiration for the naming of the pseudonymous ‘Q’ of Q-Anon fame :-| Don’t let that put you off the book though; its politics are not the same!
- oliculipolicula 2mo agoHistorical context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant_republic Notably Handeln and the communes of the Swiss Cantons are considered to have "survived" into 19th C.
- wolfi1 2mo agoThomas Müntzer is one of the unsung heroes of this revolt, unfortunately very little is left of him, most biographies take about 100 pages or less
- constantius 2mo agoAgreed, and the fact that he's not today recognised as a martyr is telling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M%C3%BCntzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M%C3%BCntzer
- alexwwang 2mo agoThe peasants’ war happened over and over again in Chinese history among the gaps of dynasties. That’s a result of autocracy.
- martin_balsam 2mo agoIf anyone’s interested about this period of time (and the Anabaptist revolution) a great novel: Q by Luther Blisset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(novel)
- constantius 2mo agoi discovered this event by reading Sartre's play "The devil and the good lord" (Le diable et le bon dieu): not historical in any way, simply takes the uprising as context, but a masterpiece nonetheless.
- hliyan 2mo agoNot a historian nor economist, but to my layman's mind, these revolts seem like a recurring phenomenon whenever long running economic cycles reach that point at which the aristocracy overreaches while trying to suppressing growing public sentiment against them, not unlike in Polybius' anacyclosis. But unlike Polybius' cycles, as technology improves, the likelihood of a successful reset at the end of a cycle, gradually diminishes with each cycle. I've recently started on Piketty's Capital, and he too alludes to the possibility that the post-industrial-revolution spiral into inequality could have continued uninterrupted into the 20th century and beyond, had it not been for the socioeconomic shock of the world war. Looking at the current trajectory of automation of intellectual labour and surveillance technology, I too am starting to worry that the odds of breaking the current cycle are slim.
- Tade0 2mo agoSomething else is going to happen this time, or really is happening already: people vote with their feet and stop having children. On one hand wealth is being pooled into a smaller number of people, on the other it's becoming difficult to have anyone invested in working harder - and for good reason, as there's little payoff in that.
- trevithick 2mo agoWhen all labor is automated, is it a problem for the elites if people stop having children?
- Tade0 2mo agoIs that a realistic scenario anytime soon? The highest estimate of jobs long term removed by automation that I've seen is around 200 million. The current labour shortage just in China is already around half of that. Layoffs in tech notwithstanding, we're still in a period of labour shortages and increased efforts at automation are a reaction to it.
- smallmancontrov 2mo agoThe Demographic Transition is modern but the age of family formation is actually used by historians to track how stressed the social contract is. Families have always been expensive and delaying them has always been a last resort for expense management.
- icantevenhold 2mo agoCrazy how obscure episodes of world history land randomly on the front page - how does it even happen? I grew up in Germany but I don’t think we covered this in history class - maybe I forgot about it, the whole medieval period is mostly a blur for me now
- acheron 2mo agoYeah, and it looks like the OP is just using it to post religious flamebait comments. If I wanted Reddit I’d be over there.
- constantius 2mo agoI'm not using this to post religious flamebait, and to anyone thinking I'm attacking their faith: this is not my intent, and I'm for sure not singling out Christianity. I find history fascinating, especially the history of religion, and my views on it are in line with my contributions and discussions on HN about authoritarianism, surveillance, oppression, etc.. It's unfortunate that wanting to give some visibility to a little known episode of history and then engaging in debate about a passion of mine is seen by you as disingenuous.
- jadar 2mo agoI know everything is told from a perspective, but I find the Marxist “aristocrat / bourgeois” lens rather tired and severely anachronistic. This is told as if Luther and the Magisterial Reformers were just “siding with the aristocracy” and didn’t have any other reasons for opposing a violent uprising on anarchy. The Reformers were trying to effect spiritual and theological change. But when the magistrate, who was supporting the Reformation, encountered radicals who used those ideas for violence and their own ambition, the Reformers had a conundrum. Carl Truman writes in his book “Luther in the Christian Life” (Crossway, 2015), ‘This latter concept, often known as “the priesthood of all believers” or “the general priesthood of all believers” was explosive in Luther’s day because it struck at the very structure of medieval piety. … The problem became acutely significant for the Reformers, and especially Luther, in 1525, with the Peasants’ War. At that time, radicals used Luther’s language of freedom as part of the rhetoric of rebellion, for understandable reasons. Such language resonates powerfully with the oppressed and disenfranchised in every age. The problem, of course, was that Luther was using such words in a manner that assumed their refraction through the cross. The same applied to the language of universal priesthood: the obvious democratizing tendency of the language was popular with those seeking more social equality. Yet the anarchy of the war placed Luther in an impossible position: he was no democratizing radical; he needed to reassure his secular lords that reformation did not mean revolution; and he needed to make sure that his teaching was clearly understood.’ The simple Marxist interpretation is rubbish — the situation was far more complicated than oppressor / oppressed.
- BikDk 2mo agoThis was not about religion but about constitution. Basically they were influenced more by the Magna Carta than by reformation. Anyway, nice to see people interested in how rights were aspired, lost and revived.
- vvpan 2mo agoCurtis Yarvin in a New York Times interview said that there were no wars under monarchy in Europe. Imagine that.
- shevy-java 2mo ago"The revolt failed because of intense opposition from the aristocracy, who slaughtered up to 100,000 of the 300,000 poorly armed peasants and farmers." Quite a slaughter. Today we also have indirect slaughter - billionaires versus the rest of the world. The medieval days, though, were quite tragic because those peons and farmers were factually slaves, depending on the area (there were a few with less restrictions for a while, but ultimately it was slavery). Some of those wars were briefly won by the peons, but in just about any case where they had some victory, lateron they had a huge defeat. Even those who survived were either later executed, or lost their wealth because those who fought for the aristocrats were often rewarded with possessions of others here. In some european countries there is still "nobility". They still have unfair wealth. They should give that to the people.
- vvpan 2mo agoPentiment is a Peabody award winning video game that covers this period. It's terribly engaging and well written. I'd use the word "educational" but that might make it sound dry, which it is not.
- dr_dshiv 2mo ago“ After defeating the peasants and their town allies in 1525, the lords continued raising rents to the point that, by the 1570s, peasants were paying 60 to 80 percent of their harvest on rents and debt. This unsustainable amount meant that the farmers could not adequately feed themselves or their livestock, nor refertilize the soil. This led to declining grain yields, widespread malnutrition, and famines, which opened the door to the return of the plague. Social tensions grew at all levels of society, producing witch hunts and repeated outbreaks of war. The growing burden of war taxes and staggering debt loads further crippled the economy, ending in general collapse into the Thirty Years War. The Thirty Years War was the inescapable result of the defeat of the peasants in 1525. Farmers in England, meanwhile, won their freedom from serfdom, which allowed them to produce the growing agricultural surpluses that fueled England’s rise to world power.” Proving again that a harmony of interests is better than domination.
- jfil 2mo agoDoes anyone have examples of peasants' revolts that were effective? (excl. the 20th century Communist revolutions) Each one I heard about was suppressed by the aristocracy.