We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
The historiography of the Peasants' War is currently dominated by Peter Blickle's The Revolution of 1525. Blickle builds upon Günther Franz's Der deutsche Bauernkrieg, long the standard history of the Peasants' War. Blickle uses the concept of “the Revolution of the Common Man” to describe the Peasants' War. The common men in both the towns and villages were united in a revolutionary effort to establish the “communal Reformation.” Blickle writes: “Evangelical doctrine gripped urban and rural communities alike, and the lay community claimed the right to decide right doctrine.… Thus, the Reformation's dependence on community erased the barriers between urban and rural communities, between burghers and peasants.”
1. Blickle, Peter, The Revolution of 1525, trans. Brady, Thomas A. Jr and Midelfort, H. C. Erik (Baltimore, 1981).Google Scholar
2. Franz, Günther, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg, 7th ed. (Bad Homburg, 1965).Google Scholar
3. Blickle, Revolution of 1525, 185.
4. Scott, Tom, Freiburg and the Breisgau: Town-Country Relations in the Age of Reformation and Peasants' War (Oxford, 1986), 190–235.Google Scholar
5. Ladurie, Emmanuel Le Roy, The Territory of the Historian (Chicago, 1979), 99Google Scholar; Franz, Günther, “Die Führer im Bauernkrieg,” in Bauernschaft und Bauernstand 1500–1970 (Göttingen, 1977). 104–16.Google Scholar
6. The two major sources for the Peasants' War in Franconia are the chronicles by Thomas Zweifel, the city secretary of Rothenburg ob der Tauber, and Lorenz Fries, the private secretary of Bishop Conrad von Thüngen of Würzburg: Zweifel, Thomas, “Rotenburg an der Tauber im Bauernkrieg,” in Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkriegs aus Rotenburg an der Tauber, ed. Baumann, Franz Ludwig (Tübingen, 1878)Google Scholar; Fries, Lorenz, Geschichte des Bauernkrieges in Ostfranken, 2 vols., ed. Schäffler, A. and Henner, Th. (Würzburg, 1883)Google Scholar. These chronicles can be greatly supplemented by the Rothenburg Bauernkriegakten in the Staatsarchiv in Nuremberg [STAN RR 331–RR 338]. Among the documents in these seven thick volumes are numerous transcripts of sworn statements given by former rebels after the uprising. These testimonies provide a rare, “grass roots” view of the development of the Tauber band. A small fraction of this material has been published in Franz, Günther, ed., Der deutsche Bauernkrieg: Aktenband (Munich, 1935).Google Scholar
7. Bezold, Rudolf Walther von, Die Verfassung und Verwaltung der Reichsstadt Rothenburg ob der Tauber (1172–1803) (Nuremberg, 1915), 12–13.Google Scholar
8. Endres, Rudolf, “Zünfte und Unterschichten als Elemente der Instabilität in den Städten,” in Revolte und Revolution in Europa, ed. Blickle, Peter, Beiheft, Historische Zeitschrift, n.s., no. 4 (Munich, 1975), 175.Google Scholar
9. Eilentrop, Paul, Verfassung, Recht und Wirtschaft in Rothenburg o/T. zur Zeit des Bauernkriegs (Marburg, 1909), 65–75.Google Scholar
10. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 35–36.
11. Franz, Aktenband, 358–59; Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 544; STAN RR 338, ff. 64b, 101–101b.
12. STAN RR 338, ff. 61–69; Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 542–45; Quester, Ernst, “Rothenburg 1525: Die Erhebung der Bauernschaft in der Landwehr und der städtischen Gemeinde,” Die Linde 57 (1975): 43–44, 54Google Scholar. (Die Linde is published as a supplement to Fränkische Anzeiger Rothenburg. A copy is available in the Stadtarchiv of Rothenburg [STAR].)
13. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 51–58.
14. Thomas F. Sea has shown that the town councils of the imperial cities never cooperated with the peasant rebellion unless forced to do so by a radical faction inside the city or by external military pressure from the peasants. Sea, Thomas F., “Imperial Cities and the Peasants' War in Germany,” Central European History 12 (1979): 3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, Tom Scott rather overstates his case when he describes the burghers' view of the peasant rebels as “useful idiots whose rebellion could be harnessed to the cause of overthrowing civic government.” Scott, Freiburg and the Breisgau, 231–32. On 11 May 1525, a group of three hundred peasants returning home from service in the Tauber band attempted to capture Rothenburg by subterfuge. Prosperous Protestant baker and member of the Ausschuss, Heinrich Christ (Thomas Sea incorrectly gives his name as Christian Heinz and incorrectly supposes that he was a plebeian leader, Sea, “Imperial Cities,” 22–23), was tipped off by a friendly peasant (“ain gutter gunner”) in the band that the villagers planned to plunder the city. Christ managed to spread the alarm and help rally the burghers to arms. (Christ's letter to the town council, STAN RR 334, f. 389b.) After a dangerous standoff between villagers and burghers, the peasants were forced to withdraw from the city. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 335–36.
15. STAN RR 338, ff. 136b–137; Franz, Aktenband, 356–57.
16. Heerwagen, Wilhelm Heinrich, Die Lage der Bauern zur Zeit des Bauernkrieges in den Taubergegenden (Nuremberg, 1899), 26–28Google Scholar; Ziegler, Hans-Peter, Die Dorfordnungen im Gebiet der Reichsstadt Rothenburg (Würzburg, 1977).Google Scholar
17. Sabean, David W., Landbesitz und Gesellschaft am Vorabend des Bauernkriegs (Stuttgart, 1972), 36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Endres, Rudolf, “Probleme des Bauernkriegs im Hochstift Bamberg,” Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesgeschichte 31 (1971): 97–98Google Scholar; Endres, Rudolf, “The Peasant War in Franconia,” in The German Peasant War of 1525: New Viewpoints, ed. Scribner, Bob and Benecke, Gerhard (London, 1979), 64.Google Scholar
18. Ziegler, Dorfordnungen, 50–51.
19. STAN RR 338, ff. 136b–I37.
20. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 36–37.
21. STAR B 224, f. 121.
22. Franz, Aktenband, 356–57; STAN RR 331, f. 452i.
23. Franz, Aktenband, 360.
24. Kutterolf's total taxable wealth was estimated by an informant as “not more than sixty gulden,” a modest sum, but enough for him to be included in the village council meetings of Wildentierbach. STAN RR 338, f. 25.
25. Lutz Kutterolf's testimony, STAN RR 333, f. 244 [unnumbered folios] (ff. 1–4b).
26. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 4b–6b); Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 61.
27. Franz, Aktenband, 358; Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 60.
28. Hans Pfister from Brettheim was an innkeeper, Sebastian Rab from Gebsattel was a stone mason, and Georg Tauberschmid was probably a blacksmith. STAN RR 331, ff. 452i–452j; Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 351–52.
29. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 76–78. The small tithe was paid in livestock and the large tithe in grain and wine.
30. The “Twelve Articles” of the Swabian peasants were prepared by Sebastian Lotzer and Christoph Schappeler from peasant grievances near Memmingen on 6–7 March. Franz, Günther, “Die Entstehung der ‘Zwölf Artikel’ der deutschen Bauernschaft,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 36 (1939): 195–213Google Scholar; Blickle, Peter, The Revolution of 1525, 18–67.Google Scholar
31. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 76.
32. Protestantism had made striking inroads even into the lower social strata of the population in Rothenburg, but, contrary to Blickle's claims, the Reformation seems to have had little influence on the peasantry itself. Lutheran innovations in the worship service in the village of Ostheim provoked angry confusion among the parishioners in February 1525. From the pastor's letter to the town council, it is clear that the villagers had no understanding of the Protestant movement in Rothenburg. The majority of the villagers wanted the holy water. The parishioners mistrusted their pastor and the change from the Latin Mass to a German Mass only decreased his credibility in their eyes. Franz, Aktenband, 340–41. Significantly, the pastor of Ostheim had his wine looted early in the rebellion, but later he was pressed into service to write letters for the rebellious peasants. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 59, 383. Similarly the Protestant pastor of Neusitz, Johann Stöcklein, had his wine looted early in the rebellion. Later he was forced to join the rebel band with his village. (Stöcklein's testimony, STAN RR 338, ff. 113–14.) Stöcklein was widely rumored to have black magic power which allowed him to create a fog or smoke that would help the peasants to conquer Rothenburg (sworn statements by seven men on Stöcklein's occult power, STAN RR 333, f. 5). Four members of the Tauber band who were later interrogated make no mention of the new religious ideas and they were not asked about their religious leanings.
33. Franz, Aktenband, 358.
34. Georg Tewfel from Schonach had apparently served as a soldier and helped to organize the band, Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 88. Lienhart Brenck also claimed to have military experience, Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 170–71.Google Scholar
35. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 87–88.
36. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 6b–8b).
37. This was the recommended tactic of the day to guard against cavalry attacks. Jähns, Max, Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften vornemlich in Deutschland, Geschichte der Wissenschaften in Deutschland, no. 21 (Munich, 1889; reprint, New York, 1965), 1: 752–57.Google Scholar
38. The name “Heller Haufen” antedated the Peasants' War; it was a designation commonly used by Landsknechte. Bensing, Manfred, “Die ‘Haufen’ im deutschen Bauernkrieg,” in Der Bauer im Klassenkampf, ed. Heitz, Gerhard, Laube, Adolf, Steinmetz, Max, and Vogler, Günther (Berlin, 1975), 184–85.Google Scholar
39. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 93–96; STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 8b–9).
40. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 96, 98–100.
41. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 11–12b).
42. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 12b–14); Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 151–52; Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 20.Google Scholar
43. On the significant role played by vinedressers in the rebellion in Franconia, see my article, “Vineyards, Vinedressers, and the Peasants' War in Franconia,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 79 (1988): 138–57.Google Scholar
44. Münster, Sebastian, Cosmographei (Basel: Henrichus Petrus, 1550), 812.Google Scholar
45. Metz, Friedrich, Land und Leute (Stuttgart, 1961), 584–92, 611–14, 646–48Google Scholar; Tisowsky, Karl, “Häcker und Bauern in den Weinbaugemeinden am Schwanberg,” Frankfurter Geographische Hefte 31 (1957): 32–46.Google Scholar
46. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 14, 16–17).
47. Vice, “Vinedressers,” 154–55.
48. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 13b–14b); Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 153–54.
49. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 14b–16); Kutterolf's testimony is clearly Zweifel's source for his account of the reorganization at Schäftersheim, Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 151–52.
50. Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 33Google Scholar; Franz, Bauernkrieg, 184.
51. Stephan Schmid from Rothenburg joined the band at Schandhof. Schmid was paid half a gulden as wages at Schäftersheim; later, at Schwarzach, Schmid received three and a half batzen. Kilian Weidner from Detwang joined at Neusitz on the promise of a gulden for his services as a trabant. He never received the full gulden, but he was paid two weeks wages at Schäftersheim. STAN RR 334, ff. 36–36b; RR 338, ff. 129–29b.
52. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 16–17).
53. Lutz Kutterolf states: “wer damals Florian Geyer Ir hauptman gewest der darvon zu Gerelshaim zu In komen und daselbst zu hauptman von dem andern hauptlewten und Raten angenomen und gemacht worden,” STANRR 333, f. 244 (ff. 18–18b). I believe this previously unknown reference to Florian Geyer gives him greater influence than is ascribed to him by Günther Franz. Franz is clearly wrong when he states that Geyer was never head of the council. Franz, Bauernkrieg, 184. In their “Translators' Introduction” to Blickle, Revolution of 1525, Brady and Midelfort mistakenly state that Geyer was a leader of the Odenwald band (p. xvii).
54. Barge, Hermann, Florian Geyer (Berlin, 1920)Google Scholar; Franz, Günther, “Zur Beurteilung Florian Geyer,” Historische Vierteljahrschrift 24 (1928): 484–90.Google Scholar
55. Franz, Aktenband, 361–62.
56. Franz, Bauernkrieg, 187.
57. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 17–18b); Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 86–88Google Scholar; Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 164–65.
58. Baader, Joseph, ed., Verhandlungen über Thomas von Absberg und seine Fehden gegen den Schwäbischen Bund 1519 bis 1530 (Tübingen, 1873).Google Scholar
59. Bensing, “Die ‘Haufen’ im Bauernkrieg,” 188–90.
60. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 18b–20b); Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 222–23.
61. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 20b, 22–22b, 23b).
62. Lienhart Brenck sold twenty malter of grain taken at Schandhof. Brenck apparently received a larger share of the booty. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (f. 9b).
63. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 238–39; STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 20b–21); RR 338, f. 130.
64. Weitz, Otto, “Siedlung und Weinbau im südlichen Maindreieck,” Zeitschrift für Erdkunde 5 (1937): 138–44Google Scholar; Schröder, K. H., “Weinbau und Siedlung in Württemberg,” Forschungen zur deutschen Landeskunde 72 (1953): 93–100Google Scholar; Vice, “Vinedressers,” 138–40.
65. Franz, Bauernkrieg, 184; STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 21–21b); Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 143–44.Google Scholar
66. Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 143–49.Google Scholar
67. Jähns, , Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften, 1: 760–61.Google Scholar
68. Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 143–49.Google Scholar
69. STAN RR 338, ff. 129b–131; RR 333, f. 244 (f. 16–21).
70. Tisowsky, “Häcker und Bauern,” 28–46.
71. STAN RR 334, f. 36b.
72. Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 155.Google Scholar
73. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 14b, 16b–17, 22–22b); Redlich, Fritz, De Praeda Militari: Looting and Booty 1500–1815 (Wiesbaden, 1956), 11–12.Google Scholar
74. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 23–24); RR 338, f. 131; Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 271.
75. Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 170–71Google Scholar; RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 23b–24).
76. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 24–24b); Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 296, 312–13.
77. Götz von Berlichingen was an imperial knight who was infamous for his feuds with imperial cities such as Nuremberg. He later wrote an autobiography and was immortalized in a play by Goethe.
78. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 313.
79. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 351; Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 205.Google Scholar
80. The burghers of Rothenburg were clearly shaken by the attempted coup against the town by three hundred peasants on 11 May. During negotiations with the rebel bands the community was polled as to whether the town should form an alliance with the peasants. Many Protestants seem to have viewed the rebellion as an act of God to bring about the introduction of the Reformation. Protestants spoke out strongly in favor of the alliance. The urban poor, vine dressers, and linen weavers, also supported the alliance. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 321–32. Florian Geyer represented the Tauber band during the negotiations leading to Rothenburg joining the rebel cause. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 352–64.
81. Staatsarchiv Würzburg [STAW] Lehensachen 7389, ff. 21–22, 50–51b, 62–62b, 98, 145–45b.
82. I believe this is a previously unknown reference to the sculptor Riemenschneider: “er zeuge [Hans Hess] habe Peter Weyern selbst, mit den pauern in der Buttners gassen sehen gehen und die Mauern daselbst besichtigen. er zeuge sey allein gewest aber, mit Peter Weyern weren gangen Meister Thiel, Hanss Eck, und ander des Rats der namen er nit wiss, do sie die mauern in der Butners gassen besichtigt wie hie vor gesagt.” “Meister Thiel” has to be a reference to Riemenschneider, a former burgomaster of Würzburg. STAW Lehensachen 7389, ff. 79–80. Elsewhere his name is spelled “Thyll Rymenschneider.” STAW Standbuch 901, f. 515.
83. On the long conflict between the town of Würzburg and its bishops see Trüdinger, Karl, Stadt und Kirche im spätmittelalterlichen Würzburg (Stuttgart, 1978), 23–62.Google Scholar
84. Ehrenfried Kumpf was the leader of the Protestant movement in Rothenburg. He secretly harbored Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, disobeying an edict by the town council. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 16–21, 92–93.
85. Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 244.Google Scholar
86. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 394–96; STAN RR 338, ff. 131–131b.
87. STAW Lehensachen 7389, ff. 109b–111b, 89–89b Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 251–54.Google Scholar
88. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 420.
89. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 25–28).
90. Schich, Winfried, Würzburg im Mittelalter (Cologne, 1977), 183Google Scholar; Trüdinger, Stadt und Kirche, 37–38.
91. Vice, “Vinedressers,” 151–52.
92. Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 29–30.Google Scholar
93. STAW Lehensachen 7389, ff. 16, 19b–21, 25–25b, 63b–64.
94. Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 299–300Google Scholar; Cronthal, Martin, Die Stadt Würzburg im Bauernkriege, ed. Wieland, Michael (Würzburg, 1887), 62–63.Google Scholar
95. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 402–4.
96. Trockau, Michael Gross von, “Kurtzer Bericht vom Bawrn krieg Anno 1525,” Anzeiger für Kunde der Deutschen Vorzeit, n.s. 3 (1855), col. 73–77.Google Scholar
97. Baumann, Franz Ludwig, ed., Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges in Oberschwaben (Tübingen, 1876), 593–94, 737–40Google Scholar; Adam, A., ed., “Das Tagebuch des Herolds Hans Lutz von Augsburg über den Bauernkrieg,” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins 67 (1893): 81–89.Google Scholar
98. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 420.
99. STAN RR 333, f. 244 (ff. 26–27b).
100. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 432–33; Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 314–16Google Scholar; Cronthal, Würzburg, 70–71.
101. Ranft, Sebalt, “Kitzingen und der Bauernkrieg,” ed. Böhm, Ludwig, Archiv des historischen Vereins für Unterfranken 36 (1893): 84Google Scholar; Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 433–35.
102. Berlichingen claimed later that he had agreed to serve only for one month. Dieffenbacher, J., ed., Lebensbeschreibung des Ritters Götz von Berlichingen (Berlin, 1911), 76.Google Scholar
103. Baumann, Oberschwaben, 594–97, 740–43; Adam, “Tagebuch Hans Lutz,” 88–92; Fries, , Ostfranken, 1: 313–25.Google Scholar
104. STAN RR 334, f. 37; Cronthal, Würzburg, 79–89.
105. Zweifel, “Bauernkrieg,” 449–50.
106. Blickle, Revolution of 1525, 105–54.
