On the Edict of Restitution (1629)

Opinions on the Edict of Restitution

  • Legally sound, politically disastrous/unsound

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • Legally & politically disastrous/unsound

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • Should've offered concession to mitigate implementation: please say what concessions

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
Thanks to those who've voted this far. Before revealing my thoughts on this topic, could those who've voted and those who shall from hence forth please offer their reasoning behind their positions? Thanks!
 
Legally he may have had a case, a lot of changes since 1555 had been technically illegal. But trying to put the clock back 74 years rarely turns out well, and nothing could have been better calculated to rally Protestant opposition - just when Ferdinand appeared to be winning. "Whom the Gods would destroy - - -".
 
What if he managed to win a bunch of battlefield victories over the next three years after this political screw-up? And he wins against the newly galvanized and more numerous opposition by a combination of weather, arguments of tactics by his opponents (look at the 3rd Crusade to see when allies of the same side screw things up by arguing), and enemies making forntal attacks on imperial fortifications (so pretty much all three effects can be considered temporary and Ferdinand should know that)
 
Top