First, a little confession (no, that does not make me a Catholic )
I am really picking your brains because I am taking a German Class with the Goethe Institute and I have to do a short presentation. I have chosen a topic in German History. Martin Luther, the Reformation, and why Germany split as it did, with the Rhineland and Southern Germany mainly Catholic and the North and North-East mainly Lutheran.
Some people have pointed out that the split seems to correspond to the boundaries of the Roman Empire, believe it or not. Is that relevant or just an odd coincidence?
Were there economic factors?
Why would southern Germany remain Catholic while just south of them in Switzerland, Zwingli, Calvin et al. were so sucessful in establishing Protestantism?
Was it the rule that the religion of an area was the religion of the Prince of that area, such as in Saxony, etc.?
All your suggestions are welcome. I will translate it all into German for my presentation. Of course I will consult Wikki and other sources, but your ideas will help me a lot.
Short answers are best because this is a short presentation. Thank you in advance.
Coincidence; the choice of religion was a political one by the rulers.
There might be a slight common factor: the parts of Germany that were part of the Roman empire (in the west and south of Germany) were also those with the shortest supply lines to Rome (seat of the imperial government). By the same token, the Catholic parts of Germany are those with the shortest ‘supply lines’ to Rome (seat of the Curia). Ease of communication with Rome might have had a small influence on the choice whether or not to align with it
Power politics. The territories of South Germany had to follow the choice of their rulers while most of Switzerland was either republican or under weak feudal rule.
Southern Germany also was nearest to the Habsburg Erblande (the territories that the Habsburg ruled in their own right rather than as elected Holy Roman Emperor) so the Habsburg choice of Catholicism also influenced their neighbours.
Conversely, for the rulers of territories farther from Habsburg power, choosing Lutheranism was also a nice means to assert their independence from the emperor.
Also, opting for Lutheranism over Catholicism gave a ruler a greater degree of control over his territory’s society: under Catholicism his bishops were appointed from Rome while under Lutheranism the secular prince also became head of his state’s church, with the attendant increase in political power.
The free imperial cities of Southern Germany (subject directly to the Emperor, under oligarchic republican rule) often adopted Protestantism while the surrounding feudal territories did not.
That’s far more relevant than most people realize. There were Catholics and Protestants in virtually every country, in the aftermath of the Reformation. But France for the most part oppressed the Huguenots, the French Protestants, until they emigrated (if they were still alive). Taking the Church of Sweden Lutheran was a power-politics move on the part of the Vasas, as the Danes who had been their rulers under the Kalmar Union remained Catholic at that time; Swedish nationalism and Lutheranism went hand in hand. After a great deal of backing and filling, England went Anglican, Scotland Presbyterian, the Netherlands Calvinist Reformed. Spain stayed Catholic, essentially driving out any potential Spanish Protestants. Ireland preserved Catholicism, in part as against the hated English Ascendancy who were by and large Anglican. And so on.
In Germany, the Holy Roman Empire’s suzerainty had descended to the status of a legal fiction, a figurehead symbol of a nonexistent unity. The Hohenzollerns of Prussia found it useful to back Lutheranism as against the HRE’s staunch Catholicism, as did the royal houses of Saxony and Hannover. The Wittelsbachs, holding Bavaria and the Pfalz, found Catholicism expedient. In each country, cuius regio, eius religio – to be a loyal, non-traitorous X-lander, you were obliged to adopt the faith system of the Monarch of X-land.
Switerland, by the way, was deeply divided between Protestant and Catholic; their last civil war, in 1848, was fought on largely religious grounds. Calvin ruled over Geneva – which is a projection of present-day Switzerland surrounded by French territory. To define Swiss attitudes and beliefs by Geneva is akin to defining U.S. attitudes and beliefs by, say, Miami.
Right, but part of the question is, why did the Wittelsbachs find Catholicism expedient while the Hohenzollerns didn’t?
And I don’t really agree with you about Hohenzollen action against the HRE was the reason Prussia became Lutheran. That might have been more true when it came to Brandenburg, but Prussia’s Lutheranism was more due to the internal dissolution of the Teutonic knights and their losses in the wars with Poland.
I believe you are under the mistaken impression that you are in the Pit, where pointless hostility is appropriate, Sitnam. If you do not wish to help me, by all means, do not do so. Why give yourself the trouble of posting to tell me you will not do so?
And how do you know how much work I have put in or will put into this presentation? I am simply fishing for viewpoints. By the way, many thanks to those people who DID answer.
All of the factors listed are possible and plausible. I have read a great deal about Europe in the late 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, and I continue to be fascinated. Columbus, Henry VIII, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, Printing. . . . I can understand why they call this the birth of the modern world.
Maybe we can sum it up like this: Conversion to the reformation, or adherence to Catholicism (even with a desire for reform within the RCC) were largely a matter of individual conscience.
This is why initially there were Protestants and Catholics in most countries. For example, I was amazed to note that there was a strong Protestant movement in POLAND (yes, you read it right!) and in Austria before the Catholic Counter-reformation, the reconversion crusades of the Jesuits, etc.
So if I had to put it into one sentence, I would say that while some areas of Europe were more likely to go Protestant or remain Catholic for a variety of reasons, what turned it into a matter of homogenous areas of Catholicism and Protestantism both in Europe and Germany especially was power politics, and the concept of *cuius regio, eius religio * rather than opuir modern idea of respect for the freedom of conscience of the individual. (Long sentence, I know, but what do you think of it as a summary?)
The Wittelsbachs did not all remain Catholic. You guys are forgetting that the senior house, the Electors Palatine, went Calvinist. The election to the throne of Bohemia of Frederik V “the Winter King” of the Palatinate by certain Protestant-leaning nobles was the spark that ignited the Thirty Years War :).
Mostly politics. Germany had no strong central political authority to make one common decision on religion so the local governments could make their own call. The reason why it generally ended up such a patchwork was also political. If the Barony of South Heidelburg was a Catholic power and the Barony of North Heidelburg felt threatened, an easy way to form an alliance was to declare themselves a Protestant power.
Politics and money. A number of the German princes chafed under the required taxes to Rome. Going Protestant got them out from under those taxes quite handily.
Just a WAG but nearness to the center of Holy Roman Empire power might have played a part in the decisions too. Not easy to switch to Protestantism with the Emperor sitting just across the border from you.
)