Presentation on theme: "1. Test next week: Tuesday, 27 January. 2. Leading class discussion: volunteers required! See discussion.pdf"— Presentation transcript:
1. Test next week: Tuesday, 27 January. 2. Leading class discussion: volunteers required! See discussion.pdf discussion.pdf 3. Choose the topic of your research paper! Preliminary Bibliographies are due on 5 February. Meticulously follow the format for bibliography posted on the 321 home page.
1. Put all personal items under your chair. 2. You may have only a pen on your desk. No aids (e.g. dictionaries, text book, notes) are allowed. 3. Do NOT write your name or anything on or in the examination booklet. The booklet is only for storage. 4. Open the booklet ONLY when I tell you. Then take out the test paper and write your name on the test paper where indicated. Write answers only in the space provided. 5. You have 30 minutes to complete the test, which starts at 11:30 sharp. Don’t arrive late! 6. When the time is up or when you have completed the quiz, place the test paper in the booklet, and return the booklet to me.
Religion and the German Princes Confession and Imperial Politics to 1608 Union and Liga The Jülich-Cleves Crisis Did the Empire succumb to an intractable confessional polarization before 1618?
Landsberg Alliance (1556) Protestant Union (1608) Catholic League (1609) “While tensions mounted in the Empire, there was no inexorable slide towards war, however. The problems were certainly serious, but not insurmountable, particularly if the emperor was prepared to act more forcefully and consistently to provide the impartial guidance most princes desired” (p. 197).
Julius Echter von Mespelbrunn, Prince Bishop of Würzburg ( ) Wittelsbach Bavaria and the Austrian Habsburgs a Catholic empire
two Protestant leaders Electorates: Rhenish Palatinate vs. Saxony itio in partes
Protestant dynasties: partible inheritance vs. primogeniture: “…partitions emasculated Protestant territories by dissipating their resources or creating debilitating inheritance disputes” (p. 204) Hessen-Kassel (Calvinist) vs. Hessen-Darmstadt (Lutheran) over Hessen-Marburg Guelph family and Brunswick: Lüneburg vs. Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel more disunity: larger vs. smaller territories; struggle for ecclesiastical property
Significance a test of the Peace of Augsburg the preservation of a Catholic majority in the electoral college the extension of Bavarian influence in the Holy Roman Empire Ecclesiastical electorsSecular electors MainzBohemia CologneSaxony TrierPalatinate Brandenburg
Strassburg Bishops’ War, Bishop-elect Johann Georg, Lorraine, Württemburg An international Protestant alliance to oppose a Catholic plot? militant Palatinate vs. politic Saxony Christian of Anhalt (Calvinist), governor of Upper Palatinate, 1595
Four Monasteries Dispute, militant Palatinate vs. Reichskammergericht stubborn Saxony Bavaria devout Duke Maximilian I ( ) vs. itio in partes
FIC Donauwörth prominence of Reichshofrat 1606: Battle of the Flags 1607: Imperial Ban Document 3: What did it mean for Rudolf II to impose the imperial ban on Donauwörth? Why does he mention Maximilian of Bavaria? 1608 Reichstag confirm Peace of Augsburg respect 1552 impasse; waning of moderation
Common problems dynastic, security interests “adventurous policies more likely” (p. 228) confessional League vs. Habsburgs primary purpose: preparations for an inevitable war pressure tactic to make the Emperor see reason spreading the cost of defence (Bavaria) deterrence for Protestants
1. What did it mean for Rudolf II to impose the imperial ban on Donauwörth? Why does he mention Maximilian of Bavaria? 2. How did the Protestant Union and Catholic League justify their establishment? 3. Why do the articles of the Protestant Union and Catholic League refer to the Emperor, the imperial constitution, and imperial laws? 4. Do you notice parallels and / or differences between the articles of the Protestant Union and Catholic League? What are they? 5. Does the language of the articles of the Protestant Union and Catholic League point to confessional polarisation?
“The lack of major conflict in stemmed from widespread opposition to violence and a general desire to negotiate a peaceful solution” (p. 230). location: Rhineland; near Spanish, Dutch, French territory population: Catholics, Protestants: growing Calvinist community, esp. in Cleves 1609: death of Duke Johann Wilhelm of Jülich- Cleves claimants: Pfalz-Neuberg, Brandenburg Treaty of Dortmund (1610)
intervention of Archduke Leopold intervention of France contradiction: opposing Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs; asserting Catholic identity slow march German intervention Catholic League kept its distance. Rhenish Palatinate mobilized troops. 1 September 1610: garrison in Jülich surrendered to French, Dutch, and Union soldiers. prohibitive costs, unwilling contributors
Central question: Was the Empire on the brink of war by 1617? Central problem: Who will succeed Emperor Matthias ( )? “Rudolf’s death and Archduke Matthias’s succession in 1612 saw many problems being tackled with considerable success” (p. 239).
Archduke Leopold’s army enters Prague, 1611 Archduke Matthias’ army enters Prague, 1611 Matthias elected Holy Roman Emperor on 13 June (Rudolf II died on 20 January.)
Austrian Estates composition before succession bi-partisan committee goal of compromise Protestant suspicions, Catholic anxiety 1613 Reichstag disrupting the Catholic league
Jülich-Cleves dispute, 1614 Calvinist Brandenburg governor vs. Pfalz-Neuburg governor (Wolfgang Wilhelm who announced his conversion to Catholicism in 1614) Spanish and Dutch involvement: 3:1 garrisons Protestant Union falters (p. 254) cases about violation of religious peace decline caseload of Reichshofrat increases
“The main threat to peace was not confessional tension in the Empire, but the continued uncertainty surrounding the Habsburg succession. Matters were brought to a head by renewed trouble on the Ottoman-Habsburg frontier that led to far more serious fighting than that around Jülich” (p. 255) Why is this quotation important in the context of Wilson’s argument?
Uskoks vs Venice Anglo-Dutch support for Venice Spanish support for Uskoks / Austrian Habsburgs Solution 1: Treaty of Madrid (1617) The Habsburgs agree to relocate the Uskoks in return for Venice’s military withdrawal. Solution 2: Oñate Treaty (1617) = Document 9 1. What is the basic quid pro quo of this treaty? 2. Why did it make sense for Ferdinand to keep this treaty secret?
Protestant disunity the plight of the Union Palatine millenarianism stalwart Saxony Matthias Hoë von Hoënegg 1617 celebrations Composition fails Catholics and Protestant disunity succession vs. resolution of religious disputes
Frederick V Christian of Anhalt Johann Georg of Saxony Maximlian I of Bavaria Matthias ( ) Melchior Klesl Ferdinand II ( )