Why did Martin Luther go against the peasants in 1525 - Historum

**Jake10** · April 18th, 2011, 03:27 PM

The Peasant War was something that Martin Luther was expected to support, yet he did the opposite. Why? Considering the conditions of hard labor and little in return that the peasants were facing, their actions were justified. The lords didn't even allow many of them to hunt for food, and charged them all sorts of taxes. Yet, Luther was a man of the people. It's hard to understand why he sided with the lords on this one.

**pikeshot1600** · April 18th, 2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake10

The Peasant War was something that Martin Luther was expected to support, yet he did the opposite. Why?

Martin Luther was a man of his time. He understood that the society in which he lived valued the princes as arbiters and decision makers. The princes understood a reformed church as one that still upheld their authority, and also allowed them to access the wealth of the Catholic Church through confiscation.

Luther was an educated person, and he had a low opinion of the peasants: "The people live like animals." So Luther understood on "which side his bread was buttered." The peasants to him were little more than they were to the princes.

**Jake10** · April 18th, 2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikeshot1600

Martin Luther was a man of his time. He understood that the society in which he lived valued the princes as arbiters and decision makers. The princes understood a reformed church as one that still upheld their authority, and also allowed them to access the wealth of the Catholic Church through confiscation.

Luther was an educated person, and he had a low opinion of the peasants: "The people live like animals." So Luther understood on "which side his bread was buttered." The peasants to him were little more than they were to the princes.

Yet he risked his career and life to bring them the word of God as he saw it?

**gaius valerius** · April 18th, 2011, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake10

The Peasant War was something that Martin Luther was expected to support, yet he did the opposite. Why? Considering the conditions of hard labor and little in return that the peasants were facing, their actions were justified. The lords didn't even allow many of them to hunt for food, and charged them all sorts of taxes. Yet, Luther was a man of the people. It's hard to understand why he sided with the lords on this one.

Cause Martin Luther was a man of the establishment. Luther was not a revolutionairy in any way, and NOT a man of the people (!) he was at best a serious reformer of the clergy but had otherwise little ambitions to change the very fabric of society bottom up. The peasants weren't his target group, they were as always the rabble that had to be kept in check.

What Luther wanted was 'religious revolution', what happened in the 1520's was abhorring to him: religious revolution was being confused by the stupid peasants as 'social/political revolution'. Guess again you savage farmers and learn your place! Inspired by Luther and his actions Germany was thrown into turmoil. Imperial knights saw the perfect excuse to wage war upon each other in the hope of enlarging their own territories by outright annexations while in the countryside preachers were stirring up the peasants with ideas that went much beyond anything Luther ever said (for example in asserting that each individual for himself could understand what was right and wrong). Though triggered by religious ideas, the aims of these revolts were socio-economic. Luther's reaction was a retreat to conservatism and a re-alignment of his theological views so that they couldn't be so easily mistinterpreted by peasant rabble. The organised (Lutheranised) clergy was given a prime role as shepards of their flock and they always had to be well disposed towards the secular rulers. Lutheranism at this point acquired that character of submissiveness to the state which went to play such an important role in German statebuilding. Christian liberty was individual and purely spiritual - in all other worldly matters a good Christian was one who knew his place, which was translated into perfect obedience to established authority.

Lutheranism, much more then Catholicism had ever been or then Calvinism would be, was the defender of the state and established authority.

**Sankari** · April 19th, 2011, 12:02 AM

To be honest, Luther just didn't like peasants very much. He was never truly a man of the people.

Luther saw the revolt as threat to the natural social order, and the institutions he valued. He was happy to provide the peasants with God's Word, but when it came to improving their situation in life, he didn't give a toss.

**Bismarck** · April 19th, 2011, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaius valerius

Cause Martin Luther was a man of the establishment. Luther was not a revolutionairy in any way, and NOT a man of the people (!) he was at best a serious reformer of the clergy but had otherwise little ambitions to change the very fabric of society bottom up. The peasants weren't his target group, they were as always the rabble that had to be kept in check.

What Luther wanted was 'religious revolution', what happened in the 1520's was abhorring to him: religious revolution was being confused by the stupid peasants as 'social/political revolution'. Guess again you savage farmers and learn your place! Inspired by Luther and his actions Germany was thrown into turmoil. Imperial knights saw the perfect excuse to wage war upon each other in the hope of enlarging their own territories by outright annexations while in the countryside preachers were stirring up the peasants with ideas that went much beyond anything Luther ever said (for example in asserting that each individual for himself could understand what was right and wrong). Though triggered by religious ideas, the aims of these revolts were socio-economic. Luther's reaction was a retreat to conservatism and a re-alignment of his theological views so that they couldn't be so easily mistinterpreted by peasant rabble. The organised (Lutheranised) clergy was given a prime role as shepards of their flock and they always had to be well disposed towards the secular rulers. Lutheranism at this point acquired that character of submissiveness to the state which went to play such an important role in German statebuilding. Christian liberty was individual and purely spiritual - in all other worldly matters a good Christian was one who knew his place, which was translated into perfect obedience to established authority.

Lutheranism, much more then Catholicism had ever been or then Calvinism would be, was the defender of the state and established authority.

This is it.

**Jake10** · April 19th, 2011, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaius valerius

Cause Martin Luther was a man of the establishment. Luther was not a revolutionairy in any way, and NOT a man of the people (!) he was at best a serious reformer of the clergy but had otherwise little ambitions to change the very fabric of society bottom up. The peasants weren't his target group, they were as always the rabble that had to be kept in check.

What Luther wanted was 'religious revolution', what happened in the 1520's was abhorring to him: religious revolution was being confused by the stupid peasants as 'social/political revolution'. Guess again you savage farmers and learn your place! Inspired by Luther and his actions Germany was thrown into turmoil. Imperial knights saw the perfect excuse to wage war upon each other in the hope of enlarging their own territories by outright annexations while in the countryside preachers were stirring up the peasants with ideas that went much beyond anything Luther ever said (for example in asserting that each individual for himself could understand what was right and wrong). Though triggered by religious ideas, the aims of these revolts were socio-economic. Luther's reaction was a retreat to conservatism and a re-alignment of his theological views so that they couldn't be so easily mistinterpreted by peasant rabble. The organised (Lutheranised) clergy was given a prime role as shepards of their flock and they always had to be well disposed towards the secular rulers. Lutheranism at this point acquired that character of submissiveness to the state which went to play such an important role in German statebuilding. Christian liberty was individual and purely spiritual - in all other worldly matters a good Christian was one who knew his place, which was translated into perfect obedience to established authority.

Lutheranism, much more then Catholicism had ever been or then Calvinism would be, was the defender of the state and established authority.

I see. Thanks again, professor.

**gaius valerius** · April 19th, 2011, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake10

I see. Thanks again, professor.

I wish

Pancho35 · April 19th, 2011, 08:01 AM

Martin Luther, typical celebrity. He gets to the top, lets the fame get to his head, and then he forgets about the people who put him there.

**gaius valerius** · April 19th, 2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pancho35

Martin Luther, typical celebrity. He gets to the top, lets the fame get to his head, and then he forgets about the people who put him there.

That's just wrong altogether. Already been over it, Luther never cared for the people at the bottom who in his opinion should simply know their obedient place. It has nothing to do with "fame get to his head", that's plain baseless.