Dorothy A. Johnson
History 13
April 23, 1926
The Peasants' Revolt in Germany
[Graded A- by the professor: "An excellent, clear account"]It is said that every new idea brings with it a certain amount of suffering. The Renaissance brought a great deal of discontent and rebellion against the existing order, particularly among the lower classes, oppressed by many centuries of feudalism, who with their awakening respect for themselves as individuals were beginning to question the basis and the right of the superiority of the upper classes. The great revolt in England in the 14th century, and the Peasants' Revolt in Germany in the 16th had the same fundamental underlying causes though the occasions were different in many ways. A study of the Peasant's Revolt in German brings out the points of resemblance and contrast.
The Peasants' War of 1525 [professor's note: "should it not of 1524-5?"] was the last, most extensive, and most disastrous of the revolts which had been chronic in Germany during the last of the 15th and the first of the 16th century. The economic causes to which these revolts are attributed were particularly active in 1525, and there were added immediate aggravations. As has been said, the fundemental [sic] cause was the change from medieval to modern conditions. Increased prosperity of town dwellers made the agricultural population restless and discontented. In addition to these more general causes, the condition of the peasants was an incentive to an uprising. The change in economic conditions popularly called the Economic Revolution had added greatly to the prosperity of the peasants and they had won considerable glory in the French wars. When a landknecht came strutting home from the wars in his impressive uniform and told of independence of army life and the new things he had seen, his friends and neighbors became more discontented with their lot. [illegible note by the professor here] In the first quarter of the 16th century there must have been a decided change for the worse in the condition of the peasant class. Contemporary writers dwell at great length upon their misery.
Three causes contributed to make their lot particularly hard. The first was the introduction of Roman Law by an edict of the Diet of Worms of 1495. There was no provision in the Roman code for the rather complicated relation between the villein and his lord that had grown out of the feudal system. So there was no place for him except as a tenant on a long lease, or as a serf. The tendency was to depress his status to serfdom.(2) In conjunction with this new legal power of the lords over their tenants was the increase of luxury in the upper classes. There was much gluttony and licentious living, and fashions of dress were so extreme and ridiculous that laws had to be passed limiting the length of shoe points and the number of garments in a lady's wardrobe. To enable them to keep up with the fashion the lords oppressed their tenants with all kinds of galling labor services and money payments. The tenant might be called upon at any time to perform the most trivial tasks, such as frightening away wild animals by waving his arms and shouting, or quieting the frogs in the pond while his master slept.(3) The lord enclosed the woods and took the common pasture lands for his own use, denied the peasants the right to fish, ruined their crops by riding over them in hunting, and cut off the water supply from the fields, all at his own will. The peasant had no redress.(4) Nor was it against the lay lords alone that the peasant held these grievences. [sic] The abbots of Kempten were among the most oppressive landlords in Germany, and the peasants seemd to have been almost more vindictive against the clergy than against the lay lords. In this connection the influence of Luther's teaching must be noted. While Luther cannot be held responsible for the uprising, because he was practically an aristocrat and denounced the peasants' actions in no uncertain terms, his theoretical teachings of reform and democracy made a great impression on the peasants, just as the teachings of Wycliffe and the Lollards had a very decided influence on the revolt in England. Social and religious movements appear in conjunction so often that it is impossible to call such injunction coincidence. Popular astrology predicting ominous and disastrous events was not without its influence on the minds of the superstitious peasants.
On top of this depression and oppression of the peasants was a whole series of crop failures beginning in 1490. In that year it is said that the lot of the poor was almost unbearable. To make matters worse, in 1499 the Swiss refused to consent to Imperial proposals for consolidating the Empire, so Maximilian delegated the Swabian League to punish them. The Swiss promised it would be a war of extermination and proceeded to make good their word, with the result that whole villages were laid waste and the desolation was terrible. [professor's note: "I do not quite understand"] In 1500 the harvest failed all over Germany. At this time there was also a sudden and mysterious rise in prices, probably caused by the increased output of mines in Europe.(6)
The revolt proper was preceded by two lesser revolts: the Bundschuh Revolt in 1513, named from the emblem of the peasants, the common laced boot of the peasant as opposed to the buskin of the knight; and the Poor Conrad Revolt in 1514, named form the common nick name of the peasant. The demands made in both these uprisings were purely agrarian in character and very reasonable. Negotiations were made at Stockach with the lords, from which the peasants thought they had gained the assurance that only ancient services were to be exacted. But the lords [professor's note: "not clear to me"] were absorbed in the wars of Charles V and the same conditions persisted.(7)
In June, 1524, insurrection broke out again. It came without warning or formulation of demands. One thousand peasants of the estate of Count Sigismund of Lupfen rose against their Lord, under the leadership of Hans Müller, an old landknecht.(8) Miller was one of the few fairly strong leaders that the revolt produced. His ready wit and singular power of oratory, to which were added good looks and the charm of military experience, made him a popular hero. He lead [sic] his followers to the little town of Waldshuh, where the townspeople and serfs of the Evangelical Brotherhood were planted. The movement spread rapidly northward into Lower Swabia, Saltzburg, Styria, and the Tyrol. It was particularly strong in Styria. By the spring of 1525 all Germany was afire, except Bavaria, Hesse, and the north and northeast provinces. The insurgents included not only peasants, but the poorer population of the towns. The missionaries and leaders belonged to all classes - poor priests sympathizing with the peasants, wandering monks who had deserted their convents, poor students, and artisans, They talked the language of the people, and distributed enflammatory [sic] pamphlets.(10)
At first the demands of the insurgents were very reasonable. As the rebellion extended, the scope of the objects grew wider and a religious element began to enter in. Many lists of grievances were drawn up, the most famous of which was the "Twelve Articles", presented at a sort of parliament of the rebels at Memmingen in March 1525.(11) A brief summary of these articles will bring out the character of the demands:
1. A request for the right to chose [sic] their own pastor and depose him if he proved unfit. He was to teach the gospel without addition, doctrine, or ordinance of man. This clause shows clearly the influence of Luther's teachings.
2. A protest against all tithes except the regular one of grain for support of the pastor and of the poor.
3. A protest against serfdom and the holding of men as property. But they said they were willing to yield to authority according to God's law.
4. A demand for hunting and fishing rights and protection against the ruining of their crops by the lord's hunting parties.
5. A protest against restrictions on wood cutting.
6. A protest against excessive services demanded of them.
7. A request for cooperation of lord and tenants for the mutual benefit of both, and a protest against extra services and dues demanded without pay.
8. A request for the readjustment of rents and a tenement which would furnish a living, on the grounds that the peasant was worthy of his hire.
9. A protest against Roman Law.
10. A protest against the alienation of common property (meadows and pastures).
11. Request for the abolition of heriot.
12. The assurance that the justness of the foregoing demands would be tested by the scriptures.(12)
Thesedemands [sic] are not at all anarchistic nor do they seem any more than just and fair to us. [illegible note by the professor here] They offer a stiking [sic] contrast to the demands of the English Peasants, who nearly one hundred and fifty years earlier had clamored for complete freedom, the commutation of all labor services, and the abolition of villeinage. It is also interesting to note that there is no attack against the government, unless possibly the clause concerning Roman Law might be taken as such, while one of the chief causes of the Great Revolt in England was the discontent of the people against the folley [sic] and misrule of the government.(13) The difference lay in the strong central government of England as over against the feudal conditions in Germany.
As the insurgents found that the reforms they wished were as far away as ever, they became more violent, and the religious element entered in more and more. There were the usual radicals and fanatics ready to use the half insane state of the rebels as fertile ground for their doctrines. Monasteries, churches, and manor-houses were pillaged and destroyed, but, as in England, there seems to have been no wanton destruction of life. The insurgents carried all before them, and the lord were [sic] helpless for the time being. A good picture of the progress of the revolt may be gained from an account given by Michael Eisenhart, a citizen of Rothenberg on the Tauber, of the conduct of the rebels in that section in the spring of 1525. On March twenty-first thirty or forty peasants got together a mob in Rothenberg, and two days later four hundred people were in revolt. They took over the town government by force, and appointed a committee of thirty-six to manage affairs. Before this committee artisans laid complaints about taxes, wages, and methos [sic] of weighing. The priest was driven from the Mass, and on Good Friday there was neither chanting nor preaching. Instead, a certain Dr. John Teuschel "preached against princes and lords ecclesiastical and lay with foul abuse and slander." On Saturday the blind monk Hans Rolfuchs spoke against the Holy Sacrament, calling it idolotry [sic] and heresy. On Easter Carlstadt preached against the Sacrament with abusive words, and the pictures and images of the church were thrown into the Tauber. As time went on more religious reforms were proclaimed, and many monasteries were burned. There was much robbery.(14)
As the movement spread the reforms agitated began to be social and political as well as agrarian, probably due to the mre [sic] educated reform agitators who saw in the movement an opportunity to advance their theories. Suggestions for a new political and social organization were foreshadowed in a scheme put forth by Eberlin in 1521, of which the key-note was popular election. [Note by professor: "... not really a governmental matter; see your ..."] There was agitation for the subjection of all princes to the Emperor, on the basis that a popular despotism was to be preferred to a feudal anarchy. But the ideas developed were premature and too democratic for the times.(15)
As was also true of the English revolt, the temporary success of the peasants was due to the unpreparedness of the lords, engrossed in Charles V's war with Francis I. But the movement was unorganized and without strong leaders, and the insurgents were becoming so demoralized that revolt was soon crushed when Philip of Hesse and the Elector of Saxony in the north and the Swabian League in the south organized their forces against it. [illegible note by the professor here] Punishment of the rebels was very severe. None of the lords, except Philip of Hesse and the old Elector Frederick of Saxony, showed any mercy or consideration. The latter had shown much sympathy with the peasants' demands, and when he died during the course of the revolt, requested his successor not to be too hard on the rebels.(16)
It is safe to say that the revolt in Germany accomplished nothing. Except in the Austrian Duchies, the condition of the peasants was even worse that [sic] ever, and to the end of the 18th century the German peasants were the most wretched class in Europe. In fact, the misery of the mass of the people is held accountable for the national weakness and intellectual stagnation from which Germany suffered during the latter part of the 16th century,[sic](17)
The most striking difference between the Great Revolt in England and the Peasants' Revolt in Germany lies in the respective immediate causes. The English insurgents, particularly the peasants among them, revolted primarily because economic and social changes were working for their economic betterment and freedom of status and they chaffed [sic] because the change for the good was not faster.(18) While the English revolt was unsuccessful in itself and had no immediate results, these changes kept on taking place, and while there were still traces of villein status in the 16th century, villein tenure had disappeard [sic] long before this, and the lower classes had a place in English society constitutionally and economically, which assured their prosperity and welfare, [sic] The German peasants, on the other hand, revolted because, while they had a taste of prosperity sufficient to make them more discontented, their social and constitutional position was not that of men but of beasts.
The participants in the German revolt were more generally of the peasant class than those of the English, although the artisans of the town did join the ranks to a certain extent. The religious element was much stronger in Germany than in England. [illegible note by the professor here] This was undoubtedly due to the change in religious ideas and attitude that had occured [sic] in the intervening period. There is a very marked similarity in the actual course of the two revolts, particularly on [professor changed to "in"] the way ideas were propogated.
Page References 1. Lindsay, T.M. A History of the Reformation, vol.1 p. 326
2. ibid. pp. 106-108
3. Henderson, E.H. A Short History of German, vol.1 pp. 246-249
4. Cambridge Modern History, vol.2 pp. 177,178
5. ibid. p. 145, and op.cit. Lindsay pp. 327-329
6. op.cit. Lindsay pp. 110-113
7. op.cit. Cambridge p. 178
8. op.cit. Lindsay p. 329
9. op.cit. Henderson p. 315
10. op.cit. Lindsay pp. 329-331
11. op.cit. Cambridge p. 179
12. Robinson, J.H. Readings in European History, vol.2 pp. 95-97
13. Trevelyan, G.M. England in the Age of Wycliffe p. 220
14. op.cit. Robinson pp. 100-103
15. op.cit. Cambridge p. 183 and p. 192
16. op.cit. Lindsay p. 335 and op.cit. Robinson p. 104
17; [sic] op.cit. Cambridge p. 191
18. op.cit. Trevelyan p. 215
Bibliography Cambridge Modern History vol. 2 The Reformation
Cambridge University Press 1907Henderson, E.H. A Short History of Germany
Macmillan Co. New York 1902Lindsay, T.M. A History of the Reformation vol.1
Scribner's New York 1910Robinson, J.H. Readings in European History vol.2
Ginn and Co. Boston 1906Trevelyan, G.M. England in the Age of Wycliffe
New York 1900