WI: The German Revolution of 1524

With a PoD around 1520, is it possible to have Franz von Sickingen successfully lead a Knights' Revolt that is joined by the Peasants' Revolt, creating a formidable fighting force of professional knights and hundreds of thousands of cannon fodder soldiers?

I'm thinking that, the series of events that would radicalize this movement into an all out revolt would take at least two years (assuming a 1524 start) and would likely result in an abolition of serfdom (if it is actually revolutionary and if the knights want to make sure that the peasants don't decide that the knights are unneeded) and the creation of a more centralized Holy Roman Empire under a German-speaking, Protestant government (despite the Emperor's Catholicism, if he stays in power at all). I believe that this would cause the peripheral territories that don't fit this German, Protestant mold to seek independence or at least great amounts of autonomy. What affect would the Netherlands (including Belgium), Bohemia, and Austria being independent at this time have on European history? What would change having such a strong state in Central Europe with quite revolutionary ideals (Martin Luther is still around and came in opposition of the church less than a decade earlier)?
 
Love the idea.
No Holy Roman Empire, though, I think. I think they´d either see themselves as an entity within the existing HRE (like Switzerland did much earlier), or, more likely, they´d want to found something entirely new.
Bohemia is very likely in on this, given its post-Hussite, Unitas Fratrum etc. leanings.
As much as I love the thought of it, and I am sure that peasants and rebellious knights could have militarily prevailed in the 1520s against the forces of reaction, I don`t think a long-term stable state could have resulted from this.
Either it stays ultra-Protestant (because Luther and Zwingli were cautious and criticised the insurgent peasantry, we`re actually speaking of a mixture of Müntzer`s Reformation and Swiss / Southern German anabaptism!) and full of revolutionary and militant zeal, which means it´ll support similar rebellions wherever they occur, which means they´ll have a huge coalition against them, which means we`re talking about a burning Europe and a Thirty Years War a century earlier (essentially what I´m currently exploring for yet another century earlier in my Hussite timeline). If so, there`s no way they can win against a rising Spanish Empire and a centralised French monarchy, for example. Also, they might just as well fall over their internal radicalisms and divisions (Robespierre-style; just look at Münster).
Or they tend towards a more stable polity, more along the lines of the Swiss Confederacy, which might mean bringing Luther and the other moderate Reformators back into their fold, which would require bringing more of the established urban and aristocratic elites into their system, but then I´m not sure how much attraction they`d have for the broader German peasantry.
Steering a middle course between these two extremes would be what could indeed create a new and highly interesting polity, but that`d be hard to obtain; it can always tilt into one direction or the other.
 
Also, the strongholds of such a polity would likely be the Alps, Southern Germany, the Rhineland right down to the Low Countries, Thuringia / Saxony and Bohemia / Moravia. Habsburg Austria might get utterly recked by this. Basically almost all the parts which are IOTL Catholic, whereas most of the Protestant regions in the North were not such fertile soil for a revolutionary state.
 
So basically, for this revolt to actually succeed, von Sickingen would have to be a successful sort of President Francisco I. Madero of Mexico figure? Be in favor of change and reform, but not too much. Want to alter the very function of the state, but just a little bit. That's a tall order for "The Last Knight."

Also, what would become of the Emperor in this scenario? Would Charles V be relegated to simply being the ruler of Spain? Would he take such a bad hit to his prestige and international standing that he is no longer considered the Holy Roman Emperor? If this rebellion establishes a new state, would they recognize him as their leader in name, even if not in practice?

I'm loving the input, it's giving me a lot to think about.
 
Ok, so what if the revolt tunes down the Protestantism (possibly to keep a recently occupied Austria at least tolerable to control) and attempts to declare the Kingdom of Swabia (as either one big kingdom or one if several) in southern Germany, putting either a sympathetic nobleman or von Sickingen on the throne to rule a Protestant kingdom within the HRE. The HRE continues to exist, but the revolutionaries have numerous demands, which Charles V is in hardly a position to refuse if he wishes to maintain the Empire under his control. These reforms would likely be in favor of centralizing the state and weakening the church, while recognizing the Kingdom of Swabia and granting it extensive, special autonomy and power.
 
@President Benedict Arnold,
please write a timeline about this!
Reviving the collapsed stem duchy of Swabia was indeed a traditional motif and could have been seized upon.
Swabia alone would not be in a position to demand much from the Emperor, unless the Northern German states turn Magisterial Protestant like IOTL and they form an alt-Schmalkaldic League together. The course of history wouldn`t be too altered in this case, not even the relative weights of Protestantism vs. Catholicism within the Empire. The biggest change would probably be the fact of a successful peasant revolt in Europe, and not just in some remote Alpine valleys. Hell, even the remote Swiss model had a massive attraction for others, so triumphant Swabian peasants in their new kingdom / duchy / republic / confederacy / league / whatever would be a political game-changer.

Main problem with this scenario is tuning radical Protestantism down.
1.) You couldn`t. Reform ideas were THE THING, the times were so ripe for that.
2.) If you could, you´d kill the revolution. The spirit and ideology of the revolution was purely radical-Protestant.
3.) Charles V. wouldn`t be pacified by a less Protestant polity because its political Otherness is much more unsettling to him and to any other traditional power.

The more I come to think about it, the more I´m sure that if 1524/25 had been a success, it would have exploded all over the continent, like a mixture of Napoleon, Robespierre and Ayatollah Khomeini washing against the cliffs of the forming centralised absolute monarchies, the old feudal order and a Europe led by the Pope in Rome. (And perhaps ended quite as soon as Napoleon`s expansion.)

Best way to contain it is perhaps to draw on the internal divisions in the radical Protestant camp, keeping them from steamrolling over the continent by turning inwards against each other. Which you`d have to end fast enough so as to avoid their utter defeat. And then perhaps install some sort of decentralised network of alliances of various degrees.
 
@President Benedict Arnold,
please write a timeline about this!
Reviving the collapsed stem duchy of Swabia was indeed a traditional motif and could have been seized upon.
Swabia alone would not be in a position to demand much from the Emperor, unless the Northern German states turn Magisterial Protestant like IOTL and they form an alt-Schmalkaldic League together. The course of history wouldn`t be too altered in this case, not even the relative weights of Protestantism vs. Catholicism within the Empire. The biggest change would probably be the fact of a successful peasant revolt in Europe, and not just in some remote Alpine valleys. Hell, even the remote Swiss model had a massive attraction for others, so triumphant Swabian peasants in their new kingdom / duchy / republic / confederacy / league / whatever would be a political game-changer.

Main problem with this scenario is tuning radical Protestantism down.
1.) You couldn`t. Reform ideas were THE THING, the times were so ripe for that.
2.) If you could, you´d kill the revolution. The spirit and ideology of the revolution was purely radical-Protestant.
3.) Charles V. wouldn`t be pacified by a less Protestant polity because its political Otherness is much more unsettling to him and to any other traditional power.

The more I come to think about it, the more I´m sure that if 1524/25 had been a success, it would have exploded all over the continent, like a mixture of Napoleon, Robespierre and Ayatollah Khomeini washing against the cliffs of the forming centralised absolute monarchies, the old feudal order and a Europe led by the Pope in Rome. (And perhaps ended quite as soon as Napoleon`s expansion.)

Best way to contain it is perhaps to draw on the internal divisions in the radical Protestant camp, keeping them from steamrolling over the continent by turning inwards against each other. Which you`d have to end fast enough so as to avoid their utter defeat. And then perhaps install some sort of decentralised network of alliances of various degrees.

I'm actually trying to make a pretty big timeline that begins with Genghis Khan dying and his brother (who made very different decisions than him) taking his place as emperor. This results in a more eastern focused Mongol Empire, which has massive repercussions globally (Mongol Japan + no Mongol Russia - Black Death for a start).

One thing that I have felt for a while is that not enough was changing with Central Europe. I'm planning on the PLC surviving and inheriting Bohemia a little later on (probably in the 1400s), but I just had the Holy Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire when it was one of the most important states in European history and deserves a full set of factors and differences that are both logical and have major affects on the development of the world.

I'm thinking one early factor would be that instead of Protestantism rising, a particularly successful Antipope is established in a kingdom in Europe (not sure which yet, potentially a revolutionary Swabia) that starts a trend of Antipopes that fracture Catholicism with most major European kingdoms having their own Pope (inspired by Medieval Antipopes and Polish Catholicism). Most of them obviously arise with their own ideological and philosophical differences. This doesn't butterfly Protestants entirely, as iconoclastic groups like the Huguenots will still exist and represent a rather small religious minority in this alternate Europe. In fact, I think that the German Revolution of 1524 would be Protestant, but could potentially delegitimize Protestantism. I'm going to try to make it as much of a logical continuation of ideas as possible (my thinking now is no Black Death = higher population = more peasants = early tensions over peasants' rights = more willing to rise up = Knights' Revolt seeing their usefulness and convincing them to make their separate causes one).

But back to this specific PoD. If you think it'd make an earlier and much more intense Forty Years War, that'd be fascinating. Do you think that such a young and radical religious-political philosophy could have delegitimized Protestantism in Europe? If this collection of people who were seen as political and religious radicals started a French Revolution type situation, do you think that this could lead to more moderate church reforms across the entire (sub)continent while remaining Catholic instead of the OTL centuries of uprisings and attempts at establishing Protestant states in Europe? Not to say that there wouldn't have been religious conflict, but I think that an early negative example of Protestantism could have kept the continent predominantly Catholic.

Edit:

Also, what do you think of the seeming link between Reformed Protestant nations and republics in the 1600s? You had the Dutch Republic and the Commonwealth of England in that time period. Perhaps Swabia could have been made a parliamentary republic with more in common with the French Three Estates than modern democracy (ie all actual power concentrated with the rich and powerful).
 
I'm actually trying to make a pretty big timeline that begins with Genghis Khan dying and his brother (who made very different decisions than him) taking his place as emperor. This results in a more eastern focused Mongol Empire, which has massive repercussions globally (Mongol Japan + no Mongol Russia - Black Death for a start).

One thing that I have felt for a while is that not enough was changing with Central Europe. I'm planning on the PLC surviving and inheriting Bohemia a little later on (probably in the 1400s), but I just had the Holy Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire when it was one of the most important states in European history and deserves a full set of factors and differences that are both logical and have major affects on the development of the world.

I'm thinking one early factor would be that instead of Protestantism rising, a particularly successful Antipope is established in a kingdom in Europe (not sure which yet, potentially a revolutionary Swabia) that starts a trend of Antipopes that fracture Catholicism with most major European kingdoms having their own Pope (inspired by Medieval Antipopes and Polish Catholicism). Most of them obviously arise with their own ideological and philosophical differences. This doesn't butterfly Protestants entirely, as iconoclastic groups like the Huguenots will still exist and represent a rather small religious minority in this alternate Europe. In fact, I think that the German Revolution of 1524 would be Protestant, but could potentially delegitimize Protestantism. I'm going to try to make it as much of a logical continuation of ideas as possible (my thinking now is no Black Death = higher population = more peasants = early tensions over peasants' rights = more willing to rise up = Knights' Revolt seeing their usefulness and convincing them to make their separate causes one).

But back to this specific PoD. If you think it'd make an earlier and much more intense Forty Years War, that'd be fascinating. Do you think that such a young and radical religious-political philosophy could have delegitimized Protestantism in Europe? If this collection of people who were seen as political and religious radicals started a French Revolution type situation, do you think that this could lead to more moderate church reforms across the entire (sub)continent while remaining Catholic instead of the OTL centuries of uprisings and attempts at establishing Protestant states in Europe? Not to say that there wouldn't have been religious conflict, but I think that an early negative example of Protestantism could have kept the continent predominantly Catholic.

Edit:

Also, what do you think of the seeming link between Reformed Protestant nations and republics in the 1600s? You had the Dutch Republic and the Commonwealth of England in that time period. Perhaps Swabia could have been made a parliamentary republic with more in common with the French Three Estates than modern democracy (ie all actual power concentrated with the rich and powerful).
1.) If you have a PoD this early, then everything is different of course. Maybe no Protestantism at all. Certainly no PLC, I´d say.
2.) Back to this specific PoD. Yes, an earlier Thirty Years War. If more intense, I don`t know. I don`t think it would have delegitimised Protestantism. Did the Great Terror delegitimise the ideals of the French Revolution (liberty, equality, brotherhood)? Or democracy generally? I don`t think so. But it would have changed both political and clerical reactions of the establishment. No absolutism, for once. The ones in power would pay more attention as to what populations feel, think and want.
3.) Sure, a republic makes a lot of sense. All the power concentrated with the rich and powerful is unlikely, though, if you want to bring it about via a peasant revolt. You`d much rather end up with a Swiss situation. Basically, as I´ve written last night in my TL, I´d imagine a mega-Swiss-wank as a possible outcome of this.
 
Actually the Emperor, all the Prince-Electors and Protestant and Catholic German Princes of the Empire (Reichsfürsten) might temporarily set their differences aside and crush this common threat to their rule. Since these ideas will not only hurt the Emperor, it may very well inspire subjects of powerful Protestant Princes too.
 
1.) If you have a PoD this early, then everything is different of course. Maybe no Protestantism at all. Certainly no PLC, I´d say.
2.) Back to this specific PoD. Yes, an earlier Thirty Years War. If more intense, I don`t know. I don`t think it would have delegitimised Protestantism. Did the Great Terror delegitimise the ideals of the French Revolution (liberty, equality, brotherhood)? Or democracy generally? I don`t think so. But it would have changed both political and clerical reactions of the establishment. No absolutism, for once. The ones in power would pay more attention as to what populations feel, think and want.
3.) Sure, a republic makes a lot of sense. All the power concentrated with the rich and powerful is unlikely, though, if you want to bring it about via a peasant revolt. You`d much rather end up with a Swiss situation. Basically, as I´ve written last night in my TL, I´d imagine a mega-Swiss-wank as a possible outcome of this.

1) The PLC developed very different to the point where it's mainly a Polish state with a Polish king and Lithuania being an important part of it.

2) Well Protestantism seemed as though it was originally about adopting reforms that Catholicism was refusing to make. Could that have simply happened instead? With those reforms and a clergy more responsive to the needs of the people, I think that Protestantism could be entirely avoided or be a small minority of Europeans.

3) Hmm, I was thinking more along the lines of how the early US (to an extent) operated. Landowning men with a certain amount of property/wealth have the right to vote and nobody else does. I don't think that they would have to grant the peasants total equality to get them on their side, perhaps just emancipation and allowing them rights would be enough. I could see parts of it developing like Swiss cantons, kind of like the True Levelers from the English Civil War.

Actually the Emperor, all the Prince-Electors and Protestant and Catholic German Princes of the Empire (Reichsfürsten) might temporarily set their differences aside and crush this common threat to their rule. Since these ideas will not only hurt the Emperor, it may very well inspire subjects of powerful Protestant Princes too.

Were there any powerful Protestant Princes at this time? This was less than a decade after Martin Luther first took a stand against the church.
 
2) Well Protestantism seemed as though it was originally about adopting reforms that Catholicism was refusing to make. Could that have simply happened instead? With those reforms and a clergy more responsive to the needs of the people, I think that Protestantism could be entirely avoided or be a small minority of Europeans.

3) Hmm, I was thinking more along the lines of how the early US (to an extent) operated. Landowning men with a certain amount of property/wealth have the right to vote and nobody else does. I don't think that they would have to grant the peasants total equality to get them on their side, perhaps just emancipation and allowing them rights would be enough. I could see parts of it developing like Swiss cantons, kind of like the True Levelers from the English Civil War.

Were there any powerful Protestant Princes at this time? This was less than a decade after Martin Luther first took a stand against the church.
2) sure, church reforms often occurred.
3) oligarchisation occurred in Switzerland, too, but unintentionally and very slowly in spite of resistance.
No Protestant princes yet.
 
Top