Talk:Peasants' War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Clarification Needed

This article needs to be reorganized into a more standard format. At present it is mostly a list of groups and their possible motivations and interests with regard to the war. The actual chronology of events however is quite unclear. Much more information about battles, key events, and casualties is needed. 74.136.219.119 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the article:

The Peasants

The lowest strata of society remained the peasant. The peasant supported all other estates of society not only through direct taxation but in the production of agriculture and the keeping of livestock. The peasant was the property of whomever he was subject to. Be it bishop, prince, a town or a noble, the peasant and all things associated with him were subject to any whim whatsoever; the lord could take the peasant's horse and ride it as he pleased (or the peasant's wife if he so desired). Countless taxes were exacted on the peasant, forcing more and more of his time to be spent working on his lord’s estate. Most of what he produced was taken in the form of a tithe or some other tax. The peasant could not hunt, fish or chop wood freely in the early 16th century as the lords had recently taken these commonly held lands for their own purposes. The lord had rights to use the peasant’s land as he wished; often the peasant could do nothing but watch idly by as his crops were destroyed by wild game and nobles on the chivalric hunt. When a peasant wished to marry, he required the lord's permission as well as having to pay a tax. When the peasant died, the lord was entitled to his best cattle, his best garment and his best tool. The justice system, staffed by the clergy or wealthy burgher and patrician jurists, would not provide the peasant any solace; the upper classes survived by exploiting the peasant and plebian classes and saw the danger in offering them any sort of equality or real justice. Generations of submission to servitude and the autonomous nature of the provinces limited peasant insurrections to local areas. The peasant’s only hope was a unification of ideals across provincial lines. Müntzer was to recognize that the more recently diluted class structures provided the lower stratum of society with greater force of legitimacy in their revolt as well as more room for political and socio-economic gains.

I think this requires further qualification, but since I'm writing from a Dutch perspective, I'd like some comments from someone who understands the German situation better.

My thoughts are that in the late 15th - early 16th century, serfdom (which is the condition described here) was still possible, but free farmers who did have rights, possessions and priviledges similar to the burgher class were also (and perhaps more) common. In the Netherlands, the scale of possessions of members of the peasant class could range from nothing to the size of minor nobility, including a manor and having a number of leaseholdings.

I don't know much about the legal position of such wealthy farmers, but it seems highly unlikely for them to stand by while some impoverished member of the nobility (who quite probably had less possessions than these farmers) violated their lands or even their wives and daughters (which, I think, was never legally possible).

Response to above: Well, before the outbreak of the German Peastants' war from 1524-1526 a few things need to be observed, especially pertaining to the peasants. First off German Peasant War is sort of a misnomer. The term that was used by the Germans during that time for the participants of the revolt was germeiner which means anyone from who is a peasant, beggar, miner, not able to have certain rights such as being able to participate on a town council, and anyone from the lower rural class, transliterated into English it means "commoner" which is more inclusvie than peasant. In Swabia, were much of the revolt was concentrated there was a flury of economic changes that were affecting the life of many of these germeiners before the outbreak of the revolt. In Swarbia it was practice that all of the sons of a recently deceased farmer would inherite the farm (they didn't neccissarily "own" the land, it was under the control of the lord, the farmers would farm the land and leave the land to their children to farm but it was all under the ownership of the lord, they technically worked the land for the lord). But what was happening was that overtime there was a large increase in the populaiton and farms were becoming fragmented because with every generation the farm plots were getting smaller and smaller. With this increase in population and fragmentation of farms there was a straining of the rural economy and a food shortage. Many peasants began to migrate to urban centers. To counter this the lords, using leibeigenschaft (personal bondage) forced the germeiners to stay on their land and also consolodated the fragmented farms by combining the smaller farms into more sizeable and productive plots. The lords when then lease out the plots to people to till and work on. This caused an increase in landless germeiners which caused friction between the rural and townsfolk. So, essentially the farmers had no choice but to let the lords seize their plots of land because it was within the lords right, there was no impoverished lords but there were many impoversiehd farmers. Also, there was confusion between the lords of which serf belonged to which lord because when serfs were marrying other serfs from other plots of land it became confusing who was under control of whom. So, along with leibeigenschaft, the lords also transfered, sometimes in the thousands, of germeiners between each other in order to balance out their feudal estates. Also, along with that the economy was changing as well with an increase of urban capital into the rural sector with the "putt-out" system and struggles over avaiable resources. Overall, the issues of "peasantry" were very complex during and before the time of the "Peasants" (or Common Man) War.

Sources used:

Blickle, Peter. The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants’ War from a New Perspective. Translated by Thomas A. Brady, Jr. and H. C. Erik Midelfort. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1981.

Buck, L. P. And Zophy J. W. editors. The Social History of the Reformation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1972.

Karant-Nunn, Susan G. Review of The German People and the Reformation edited by R. Po-Chia Hsia. American Historical Review 95, no. 3 (1990): 847-848.

Scott, Tom. “The Peasants’ War: A Historiographical Review: Part I.” The Historical Journal 22, no. 3 (1979): 693-720.

—Freiburg and the Breisgau: Town-County Relations in the Age of Reformation and Peasants’ War. New York: Clarendon Press, 1986.

—“The German Peasants War and the ‘Crisis of Feudalism:’ Reflections On a Neglected Theme.” Journal of Early Modern History 6, no. 3 (2002): 265-295.

—Town, Country, and Regions in Reformation Germany. Boston: Brill, 2005.

Scribner, B. and Benecke, G. editors. The German Peasant War of 1525: New Viewpoints. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1979.

Stephensj74 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War?

What was the nature of the "War"? Was it violent??

There needs to be more detail on the war itself. In Wuerzburg, for instance, there is a huge castle overlooking the city with several huge walls. It looks like it would be impossible to militarily overrun, even with machine guns and modern artillery. Apparently, hordes of peasants did try to attack the castle and were slaughtered in great numbers. A modern movie could be made about the unsuccessful attack on this Marienburg castle.EnglishGarden 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What actually happened?

This appears to be a very learned article, with lots of sociological background and analysis, but what actually happened? Can someone add a narrative account of the Peasants' War? It's no good a non-expert like me reading all this detailed analysis if I only have a vague idea from general knowledge about what happened. Or perhaps this article should be more accurately entitled, "Analysis of the Peasants' War." --Iacobus 03:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Priority

I find it odd that this piece is about a Peasant uprising but they are the last listed group in the list. What's the reasoning behind the order? Thanks for the article. Hu Gadarn 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In defense of the priority as it stands:

The order in which the classes are listed is a sophisticated rhetorical device, used to good purpose. First, it's easier to understand the different social classes if they're listed in order; and it makes sense to list them from top to bottom, because the concerns of the more powerful classes will be of greater scope, and will encompass the concerns of the class(es) below them. This sequencing gives a gradual, continuous direction to the explanations of issues, conflicts, and relationships between the classes. The structure naturally assists the exposition.

Second, the point of the explanation of the classes is to set the stage for the peasants' revolt. The cumulative weight of the descriptions of all the other classes, with their ambitions, hungers, and resentments, and their universal need for more money, palpably comes to rest at the bottom on the peasants. Whoever drafted this explanation could simply have said "The peasants were under constantly increasing pressure," but it would be a much weaker construction. You wouldn't feel the pressure on the peasants the way you do when you've seen how many stacked-up layers were resting on their shoulders.

The third benefit of that device is that you can't just read the opening paragraph about the peasantry, decide you know what's going on, and skim-read the rest if you read it at all. It forces the reader to pay attention to a series of important relationships, which actually focuses more attention on the part about the peasants.

I don't know who wrote it, but that sequence is a nice piece of construction, with built-in reinforcing logic. I wouldn't reverse its order just to put the peasants first.

[edit] Narrative

I utterly agree with Iacobus above. This is fine as a sociological analysis, but few historians would now write about the Peasant's War in this form. Could we insert a large chunk of narrative in first in this document (since that's probably the most important stuff to put in, and a great deal of the sociological stuff already in the article would now be disputed by many Reformation historians). For narrative, I would suggest broadly following the introcution to Scribner & Scott, The German Peasant's War, (1990). This divides up the war into the five separate geographical entities it was: 1. Southwestern Germany (Black Forest, Upper Swabia) 2. Franconia 3. Thuringia and Saxony 4. Rhine-Main region 5. Tirol.

Would this be acceptable to put on the page? User: Sam, 5 June 2006

That looks like a good plan. Please go ahead if you have the time, it looks like you have the sources to hand. --Iacobus 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues

Quite a bit of the wording comes out as praising the poor and vilifying the upper classes and clergy. Without specific sources, I couldn't justify the current wording. I got rid of some of the most blatant issues, but hopefully someone else can make further improvements. Sxeptomaniac 19:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What else is new at Wikipedia? Just kidding. This article is quite different from the German article. The German article goes into detail about how the farmers were not organized properly with many staying home to tend their crops.

The German article gave me a lot of what I wanted, which was an account of the more important battles, if you could call them that.

It seems that the farmers (Bauern) just captured cities by surprise, which counted as their victories, and they were later defeated by real armies. How they were treated by the real armies who defeated them, depended on how cruel they were to the people they captured by surprise. So, for instance, when they tortured and killed nobles and knights at Weinsberg, the nobles and knights of all Europe got very upset and this actually guaranteed that the peasants would get no sympathy in this war. The particular peasant leaders who tortured the nobles at Weinsberg were burned alive in punishment and everyone associated with them killed. At the same time, other disorganized peasant armies were defeated and captured so easily that the local nobles just made them pay large fines and go home.

Because this Peasant's War (Bauernkrieg) has been so important for communist ideology (and presumably modern leftist ideology), it could be the case that POV was shown in selectively translating this article using the German article as a base.

In particular, someone needs to edit this article to show how disorganized and ineffective the peasants were...by recounting how they captured unguarded cities and lost when the real armies came to bring order. People who are pro-Proletariat might not want the article to reflect the major turning point of the war, which was when the farmers tortured the nobles at Weinsberg and turned the learned world against them (those who could read and write).

EnglishGarden 21:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

the ideological objections (that the nobles have been shown insufficient sympathy, that the Bauernkrieg has been important for leftists and communists) here seem below the level of historical narrative construction (and themselves quite ideologically driven) and should be dismissed as reasons to rewrite the article, unless serous professional sources can be adduced.

Actio 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Actio

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I was not saying that we needed to be sympathetic to the nobles. The nobles are going to look bad no matter how we present the information (because they were doing awful things), but we don't want the article to feel like we're cheering on the peasants and booing the nobles. We want to simply present the facts, not make value judgements regarding who the good and bad guys were. Sxeptomaniac 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Peasant Siege of the Marienberg Fortress Above Wuerzburg in May 1525

I recommend that editors examine the Marienberg Fortress article for an account of the critical battle that lost the war for the peasants. Note that I've already described how the tortures and killings by the peasants of nobles and knights in Weinsberg was the psychological turning point that made it so the nobles and knights would not compromise or make peace with the peasant movement.EnglishGarden 22:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional link?

Would it be a good idea to add a link to the opera by Paul Hindemith called Mathis der Maler? It is set during the War and centers on the painter Matthias Grünewald. Wspencer11 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

First, Stephensj74 has got it right in his comment at the top (and he used good sources; I am familiar with Blickle's work, which is kind of a standard for the Bauernkrieg). Second, see the terminology note at Popular_revolt_in_late_medieval_Europe. But most of all I'm astonished about the map; it needs a couple of corrections:

  • Strassbourg isn't in modern Germany
  • it's "Odenwald", not "Odernwald"
  • "Prag" should be spelled "Praha".
  • But my major factual gripe about this map concerns Switzerland. It's given as "Insurgences since 1291", which is a bit nonsensical. By 1524, the Old Swiss Confederacy was firmly established, and emperor Maximilian I had in 1511 officially given up all former territorial claims of the Habsburgs in that area in a treaty with the Swiss Confederacy called the Erbeinung.[1] The Swiss Confederacy was at that time an Imperial estate exempt from the Imperial Chamber Court, although that status within the empire was never formalized.[2] Furthermore, much of the northern and western part of the Swiss Confederacy is shown as having seen uprisings during the German peasant war. This completely neglects that these "insurgences" in the Swiss Confederacy had a completely different quality as they did not (as in Germany) result in widespread armed uprisings. In the Swiss Confederacy, these insurgences remained isolated events and in general did not escalate to armed conflicts.
  • The boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire shown seem to imply that the Duchy of Milan was part of the empire. But France surrendered its claims in northern Italy only in 1526; see Italian Wars, in particular Italian War of 1521. Also compare this map.
  • Finally, what was used as the background image for this map? It looks like some satellite image. Where did it come from? Is it in the public domain?
  1. ^ Braun, B., Sieber-Lehmann, C.: Ewige Richtung and Erbeinungen in German, French and Italian in the online Historical Dictionary of Switzerland. Version of 2004-12-07.
  2. ^ Braun, B.: Heiliges Römisches Reich – 3. Von der Reichsreform zum Westfälischen Frieden in German, French and Italian in the online Historical Dictionary of Switzerland.

Lupo 22:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strassbourg was certainly in Germany then; Prague should be spelt Prague. The Duchy of Milan is very reasonably shown in the Empire. But this old-fashioned Marxist version (of the whole article) needs wholesale changes, including description of the actual events. Johnbod 02:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Primary What?!?

Primary sources

  • Martin Luther (1525). Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants
  • Friedrich Engels (1850). The Peasant War in Germany
  • Tom Scott and Bob Scribner (1991). The German Peasants' War: A History in Documents

Friedrich Engels is a primary source for the german peasant's war? Thats an interesting viewpoint. I'm changing this. --168.105.209.33 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearly that is in error. It should be moved to secondary sources. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I know a lot of people seem to be defending this article for whatever reason, but it desperately needs a rewrite. It seems to be written from an extremely socialist viewpoint. Not that it is overtly biased, but the article has about ten sections on classes and class conflict, and about two or three scattered paragraphs on the actually events of the war. As if they were some sort of footnote. Inarguably you can't study the Bauernkrieg without understanding the class issues that underpinned it, but this article focuses so exclusively on them that it ends up being to the detriment of the end product. Its unencyclopedic and something needs to be done about it. Thoughts? --168.105.125.248 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Civil law

I saw the redlink to Roman Civil law in the article and was tempted to change it to link to Corpus Juris Civilis but I thought I'd better check - and I can't find a reference supporting this. Certainly Engels doesn't mention Justinian law in any way in his book (he does mention it, as 'the Pandects', in other works, but not in relation to this conflict as far as I can tell). To the contrary, the mentions of 'Roman' and 'jurisprudence' that I found were all about the application of church dogma in the courts - not the same thing. I'm tagging this as lacking sources. Bazzargh (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)