1555: Why did some German princes embrace reformation?

We probably overestimate the spiritual aspect of it
Why? Historical preconceptions (and misconceptions) aside, is there anything pointing out that they were unable to have the same spiritual concerns than modern humanity?

Many of those Princes saw an avantages into it, as pointed.
And why material advantages are to be separated and opposed to other, more personnal and idealistic motives?
One doesn't exclude the other. Heck, they probably motivated each other quite importantly.

Eventually, I'll stress *again* this point : if it was only "take Church's monies and clay", it would have been far, far more widespread. It wasn't.

One wonder how many even really believed much in God beyond lips services at times. Of course, not said openly, but...
Giving it's a discussion about history, and not gratious suppositions we have to rely on sources.

Granted, we can always go the "They'd never put that, but they surely tought otherwise than any of what they let", but baseless assumptions generally don't do well went it comes to scientific criteria.

For all we know, the XVIth was indeed a period of great religious and spiritual questioning, and people do mattered about it.
 
We probably overestimate the spiritual aspect of it, men of power are men of power, catholics, christians or any other - they can use the church and faith to gain power.

Many of those Princes saw an avantages into it, as pointed.

One wonder how many even really believed much in God beyond lips services at times. Of course, not said openly, but...

Almost everyone. There were one or two freethinkers and agnostics floating around but the vast majority of people, high and low were genuinely, sincerely deeply religious. That's not to say that almost everyone wasn't eager to benefit personally from following the "Will of God" but discounting the spiritual element gives you a very screwed up idea of people's motivations. To look at England you had Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell who were both as social climbing, ambitious servants of the Tudor Crown determined to make their fortunes through Royal service. But both also took enormous risks out of deep seated religious belief and in More's case sacrificed his life.
 
One wonder how many even really believed much in God beyond lips services at times. Of course, not said openly, but...
As opposed to what? Your suspicions are very much biased by the advanced time period you've grown up in. Imagine yourself living in a pre-Enlightenment, pre-scientific-method society. The world around you is vast and teeming with diverse, complex life and everything appears to act in sync.

Would you have seriously believed such an intricate place just came into being by itself or always existed? Yes, in hindsight, the findings of evolution and troves of cosmological data have indicated that such an non-divine origin is indeed possible. But before humans gained that extensive knowledge, atheism seemed ridiculous. While today's atheists have a plausible answer to the question of where everything came from, a sixteenth century atheist would've been left shrugging his shoulders.

The perceived need for a creator was almost inherent at this time, and the Bible gave men the comfort that they were on good terms with said creator.
 
I had another look at http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HolyRomanEmpire_1618.png. Most of the catholic states seem to be prince-bishoprics (e.g. MZ, TR, WÜ), Hapsburg territories or under French influence (Lorraine and the Alsatian cities). Is there anything else, apart from Bavaria?

Hapsburg and Wittelsbach had been on the imperial throne since 1440, so they want to have a strong catholic empire. And the you can't underestimate the power of France and Sweden, I guess.

Reformation in the Duchy of Lorraine is unrealistic (France wouldn't have permitted it). And I understand how someone like the landgrave of Hesse-Cassel had an interest in siding against the catholic powers.
 
This map shouldn't be used for 1555, would it be only because Lutherans were the only Protestants concerned by the treaty.

This one should be more useful for the period.
 
What I don't understand is why lowland Scots turn protestant when northern England was still clinging to the Old faith?

Well a lot of English Northerners did turn Protestant, while recusancy was more common than in the South and exacerbated by the North-South divide the results of the various Northern Revolts suggest there were a lot of genuine Anglicans in the North. As for Scotland it was a separate country with separate political and cultural trends and a very different Reformation overall. It's a bit like asking why Sweden went Protestant but Poland didn't.
 
Top