I`d like to thank everybody who has replied up to now, you bring up very important issues and ideas. I`ll comment some of them speparately.
The first to react was user Valdemar II:
No. At least not a peasant rebellion which look anything like the one which happen in OTL.
Thats the whole point of an alternate line of events. It wouldn`t be like the original, but maybe not too implausible.
It was more or less crushed by the local knights themself, and if they couldn't the more powerful Princes would have had to stop the rebellion.
But the peasants had one advantage- their numbers. If they had been able to transform their chaotic "Bauernhaufen" (mobs) into something akin to a real military formation, their chances to stop even massive punitive expeditions would`ve risen.
rcduggan writes:
Looking at a map of the Peasants' War, it seems that much of the rebellion began in the south, close to Switzerland. Perhaps if the peasants are successful in carving out some sort of state west of Bavaria, they could join the Swiss Confederacy for protection from the rest of the HRE?
The peasants war took place ten years after the battle of Marignano, any swiss intervention seems highly unlikely.
No. It would be suicide for both parties. It would force - literally force - the HRE into a big and brutal war with the Swiss for nothing more than their honour, and it would drag the Swiss out of their mountainous home where they had the tactical advantage in military terms, to a place where they were far more likely to be destroyed by a larger army. Contrary to popular belief on this board, the Swiss weren't all-powerful, they simply were very good and lived in insanely defensible terrain. If the Swiss Confederacy were based on flat lands rather than in the Alps, they wouldn't have lasted one twentieth of the time that the RL Swiss Confederacy has lasted. Talk of Swiss-wanks may be very popular at times but they are absurdly implausible and the Swiss wouldn't be able to defend this peasant state. On top of that...why would the Swiss defend them? The Swiss were ruled by their own nobles and burghers, and they had every reason to side with the HRE. It's like asking, if a theoretical Communist rebellion in France in the late 20th century succeeded in forming a small breakaway state around Alsace-Lorraine, would it ask for German protection? No, because the Communists would be just as much a threat to Germany.
Exactly. In addition, the swiss had just (in 1521) given up most of their independent foreign policy to the french kings.
On top of this, and in a manner which would to some extent make my previous point null and void, I'm no specialist on the Peasants War but I highly doubt that it was designed to create a peasant state.
You`re quite right, the rebellion wasn`t designed to build an independent state. In fact, it wasn`t "designed" at all by anyone, it was made up on the fly by very different groups with diverging goals and ideas about the future.
Such things just didn't happen. How would the state govern itself? It would be akin to the entire pre-teenage child population of a given state trying to take control of their country - even if they were successful, they wouldn't be able to control their state and they knew it.
Here I disagree. If the peasants had been victorious on the battlefield, they would`ve been forced to create a system to control the territory they held. Not everyone taking part in this rebellion was a dumb peasant with a dung fork. There were very intelligent and sophisticated people on their side:
Christoph Schappeler- A preacher and reformer in Memmingen, friend of Zwingli, co- author of the "12 articles", the one most important manifest of the uprising (more than 25.000 copies were produced in a few months).
Thomas Müntzer- A preacher and reformer in Thuringia, leader of the peasant rebellion in that region. Was executed after the battle of Frankenhausen, the last important battle of the war.
Wendel Hipler- A former secretary and chancellor of the Count of Hohenlohe, he was a studied lawyer. He is also known as the "peasants chancellor" because of his role in the "parliament of peasants" in Heilbronn. The parliaments modification of the "12 articles"called for reformation of the feudal system and empowerment of private properties instead of the nobles large estates.
Florian Geier (von Giebelstadt)- A noble knight who had worked as a diplomat and captain for the swabian league and the german order in his former career. He supported the rebellion by hiring his own troop of professional soldiers (the so called "Schwarzer Haufen") for the fight and tried to use his diplomatic skills to help the peasants to achieve a settlement even after the first defeats.
If the peasants rebellion had survived the year 1525 by gaining some victories against the noble punishment forces, everything could`ve happened. In the OTL, most peasants (even many of the leaders) thought they could force the nobles to the negotiation table. This hope was one of the main reasons for their downfall, because the feudal lords used it to divide the peasants and crush them separadley. But after some mayor victories, many would`ve seen that negotiation wasn`t possible any longer and the radical factions would`ve taken over.
Again another pet peeve of mine, contrary to popular belief here, and surely down to people here trying to apply the politics of the present era to the medieval era, peasants weren't in a constant state of social upheaval. They weren't constantly fighting for equality and an end to the class system and equal taxes and the vote for women. They knew they needed nobles to govern them because they knew they didn't have the ability themselves.
Sorry, thats simply not true. The peasants "knew" nothing of that sort, they were indoctrinated by the church and the feudal system they were born into to believe this. Why wouldn`t they be able to govern themselves if they tried? Decentralized, local councils and a loose overall control by a "peasant parliament" don`t seem impossible at all.
The vast majority of rebellions were not aimed at overthrowing the ruling classes, they were aimed at causing so much problems for the government that the government had to listen to them - like social terrorism on a massive scale.
Thats true enough and the negotiations that took place are ample proof of it. The radical factions weren`t strong enough to force the rest of the rebellious peasants into a mindset of all out war against the established system.
Now clearly the Peasants War was a unique case because of its scale, but I honestly think that if the Peasants had been ultimately successful, then they would negotiate for the return of nobles and a restoration of their place in the HRE, on the proviso that their taxes and religious demands were acknowledged. No breakaway states and no apply for membership into the Swiss Confederacy here.
I think you underestimate the dynamics here. After a few years of full blown military confrontation and after erecting a self- governing structure able do support the fight -not to mention the thousands of killed or displaced nobles and clergy- a return to the status quo with a tax and property reform wouldn`t be possible.
@MerryPrankster Thanks for the links, much appreciated!
A peasant 'victory' is thinkable, barely, but under very different circumstances. There is no way the political demands formulated by the peasants could have been realised because they basically depended on the ruling class playing fair (that's what they wanted, more or less). However...
Some of the more radical elements knew that "fairness" wasn`t in the game and tried to force the peasants hands through actions like the "Weinsberger Bluttat" where the Count of Helfenstein and his knights were killed by the peasant mob lead by Jaecklein Rohrbach.
The demand to honour traditional rights and customs was politically dangerous at the time. Rulers and territorial lords were enforcing their power to dictate, but the outcome was not a given - they met stiff resistance from the local elites. The peasants were an exponent of this development at the lower end, angry with abuses of authority and the fact that every change went against them. They were powerful, but badly disorganised.
One of the main questions is if the social and geographical circumstances would allow a (plausible!!) better organisation and cohesion of the peasants.
Note, though, that in several instances they found leaders who offered them a forum and a level of organisation. Imagine, if you will, a more influential party getting involved. Cities might be the best option (IOTL several cities did support the rising). They could use the leverage and canalise the military potential.
I agree, my thoughts for an alternate peasants war revolve mostly around more charismatic leaders, whole hearted support from cities, and experienced military personnel.
The biggest problem IMO is that Luther sided with the princes rather than the mediatised burghers and nobles, so that took away the religious legitimacy. I think Luther coming down on the rebels' side is ASB, though.
After a few won battles Thomas Müntzer could take Luthers role and give the rebellion the needed religious legitimacy...
So, I`m still undecided if it would be worthwhile to try the "pure" allohistorical path with this or if a "Napoleon ISOTed into Matern Feuerbachers head" ASB intervention is inevitable.
None the less, thanks for your insightful postings guys!
