Martin Luther Protestant Reformer

does anyone happen to know which or how many princes converted to protestantism after or during hte reformation, and how many of those aculaty belived the theolgy, or how many didnt would be more helpful. i kind off need help as soon as possible, quick replies would be appriciated. thanks

Reply 1

upturnedpalms

The fact that I had to check my notes for this is an indication that I should be revising....

1525 - Phillip of Hesse and John of Saxony (establish League of Torgau to protect Lutheran ideas). Same year, Albert of Hohenzollern, Master of Teutonic Knights converted and brought his land with him.

1531 - Schmalkaldic League formed, bringing 8 new princes, for the power and the glory more than anything. Inc. Duke of Bavaria.

1535 - Brandenburg, big Catholic state, and it's princes, succumbed.

1539 - Ducal Saxony

1543 - Archbishop of Cologne

1546 - Elector of the Palatinate Frederick II, making a Lutheran majority in the electors.

As a general rule, most of the latter princes were jumping on the bandwagon for wealth and power - if they were Lutheran, so were their lands, and thus they controlled them as opposed to the Church. Early supporters like Hesse actually took to the religion.

Hope this helps.

Reply 2

jet-taylor

thanks, that is just what i wanted., this is gona sound terible, but can u by any chance tell me what book it was in, who wrote it and what page its on? coz i need it for my footnotes. if u dont no it dusnt matter, ill blag it lol

Reply 3

upturnedpalms

Sorry, can't help you, it's from notes our teacher gave us :smile:

Reply 4

lordcrusade9

Erm I am not 100% sure about bishopric of Cologne. Was that temporary rather than permanent?

Prussia is not really in the empire but I guess it is German.

I would also like to draw your attention to 1534

Ulrich of Wuertemburg was reinstated by the League of Schmalkalden though he was removed in 1519 for his tyranny. Wuetemburg is a very big state in the south west of Germany, which furthered spread of Protestantism

Also note According to Dickins, 51 out of 65 imperial cities converted to Lutheranism whether it was temporary or permanent. "The reformation was an urban event"

Reply 5

lordcrusade9

I think most princes were sincere. Bradenburg was an interesting one. The prince was forced by the estates.

Reply 6

charlotte11

As lordcrusade9 says, although Archbishop von Wied of Cologne tried to introduce reform in his diocese, he resigned in 1547, so the diocese didn’t become permanently Protestant. His reforming plans were opposed by conservative clergy in Cologne and since he’d allied with the Schmalkaldic League, he was in danger of being attacked by the Emperor. (This is according to Diarmaid MacCulloch’s Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, p 271.)
Apart from that, the imperial prince-bishops remained Catholic. The 1555 Peace of Augsburg specified that, while secular princes were free to accept Lutheranism, any imperial bishop who did so would lose his office and the lands attached to it, which obviously would have deterred them from adopting reform unless they had a strong personal belief in Protestantism. (In 1582 another archbishop of Cologne did defy this ruling by declaring himself to be Protestant, and was swiftly deposed by force – MacCulloch p452).

Almost all of the secular princes ended up supporting the Reformation, but one exception was Bavaria. Bavaria did ally with the Schmalkaldic League, but this was a result of political rivalry with the Habsburgs more than any Protestant beliefs – in 1546 Duke William IV switched sides to support the Emperor. His successors were strongly Catholic: dukes supported the Jesuits in their efforts to re-convert the population back to Catholicism. (MacCulloch 454)

Hope this helps and isn't too late :smile:

Reply 7

lordcrusade9

wow a lot of reading there. I am guessing the prince-bishops were not hereditary and they were appointed by Rome therefore they couldnt declare Protestant?

Reply 8

charlotte11

The prince-bishops in the Empire weren’t actually appointed by Rome – it’d been agreed in the fifteenth century that they would be elected by their cathedral chapter instead – but yeah, I think the reasoning was that the lands belonged to the Catholic church, not to the bishop. The Catholic negotiators had to accept the loss of the church lands which had already turned Protestant in the previous decades, but they wouldn’t agree to let any more go.

Reply 9

lordcrusade9

If they were not appointed by Rome, why did Albrecht Hohenzollern need to bribe the Pope to become Archbishop of Mainz?

Reply 10

charlotte11

He was already Archbishop of Magdeburg when he managed to get himself elected to the Mainz see, so he had to get special permission from the Pope to hold both archdioceses at once.

Reply 11

lordcrusade9

of course, of course. Pluralism of course was not suppose to happen.
So even though he paid 10 million ducats, he was still elected? wow you do know loads, one is impressed. are you going to do history/doing history in uni?

Reply 12

charlotte11

Wasn't it only ten thousand ducats for the papal dispensation? (Although I think newly elected archbishops routinely had to make a large payment to the Pope on assuming their office, so he had to raise money for that too.)

Anyway, thanks. :redface:

Yes, I'm at uni - didn't do this paper for A-level, so I have no idea if any of this is actually useful...

Reply 13

lordcrusade9

it is 10,000 haha. 10million is about the same Spanish royal income for a year...
what uni do you go to?

Reply 14

charlotte11

King's College London - well, actually I had to take time out because I was ill, but I'll be at KCL in autumn. It says in your profile that you're going to do maths, so I suppose you haven't got much longer to go with history? think you'll miss it? :biggrin: