The Thirty Years War was a war over religion rather than politics. Do you agree?

Authors Avatar

The Thirty Years War was a war over religion rather than politics. Do you agree?

‘During the whole of the seventeenth century there were only six years in which there was no war in some area of Europe; in the first half of the century there was no year of peace at all’1. During these fifty years Europe was embroiled in a period of conflict known as the Thirty Years War. The main conflicts of this period were; the war in Germany (1618-1648), conflict between Spain and the Dutch Republic (1621-48) and war between France and Spain (1635-59). Though only four European nations are mentioned here these conflicts eventually spread and overlapped to involve every European nation to some extent. Viewed at face value the alliance division of the war into Catholic and Protestant nations lends itself to the interpretation that this was a war fought over religion. However it could be argued that though religious factors were prominent political factors too were highly important. Moreover religious and political issues can often overlap and combine to create a more complex picture. The aim of this essay will be to analyze the circumstances surrounding the three principle struggles referred to above and, using historians’ interpretations, arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not these wars were fought over religion rather than politics.

The first conflict of the Thirty Years War that will be looked is the conflict in Germany. In 1619 long suppressed religious and political problems were bought to the fore in the Holy Roman Empire with the election of Catholic Emperor Ferdinand II. Yet in 1619, the election of a Protestant Emperor was a theoretical possibility. Two days before the Ferdinand’s election as Emperor, a new candidate had emerged. The Bohemian estates deposed Ferdinand as King and elected the Protestant Frederick V to replace him2. Thus there was a temporary Protestant majority in the Electoral College however, news of the Bohemian decision did not reach the electoral meeting in time and Ferdinand was able to secure power by voting for himself. Thus the catalyst for unrest in the Empire at this time is clear as according to Bonney Ferdinand was firmly anti-Protestant and had made a notorious vow to eliminate heresy throughout his territories3. Tensions reached boiling point when a number of Protestant Bohemian noblemen threw two royal governors out of a palace window in Prague, landing luckily on a refuse heap. Comic as this event may seem historians later agreed that this was the beginning of the most devastating war that Europe was to experience before the twentieth century4. The commencing of war could be interpreted as purely antagonism between Catholics and Protestants however there were important underlying political factors that drove the fighting. H.G Koenigsberger argues that the rebellion was ‘resistance by a privileged group for both political and religious reasons to an aggressive, centralizing monarchy’5. The argument that fighting commenced due in part to the perceived increasing political power of Ferdinand II is supported by Bonny who argues that Ferdinand and his “Imperial generalissimo” Wallenstein were agitated by the weakness imposed on them by the Imperial Constitution. Wallenstein is alleged to have remarked that the electors and princes of the Empire were no longer necessary. In France and Spain there was only one king, and thus Germany should have only one ruler6. Such hints of autocratic intentions even aroused suspicion among the Catholic princes who shared the Emperor’s religious objectives. Thus there was an element of truth in the Franco-Swedish propaganda of the 1630’s that the Thirty Years’ War was not just a religious war but a war for ‘the liberties of Germany’7. In addition D. H Pennington casts doubt on the strength of the religious motivations of both the Catholic Emperor and the Protestant rebels. He states that the emperor argued, not often convincingly, that his cause was that of Catholic rulers, and the Catholic faith everywhere. He continues saying that Protestant governments could, when it suited them, agree that a struggle against the emperor was part of their devout resistance to the all-pervading evil of popery8. However Maland argues that in the Thirty Years war, the cause of religion was something more than a mere rallying cry to the masses. Princes…the defense of their faith was as much a matter of self-interest as the acquisition of territory, influence and power9. This difference in historical interpretation shows just how difficult it was to separate religious fervor and political ambition as both appeared to be closely interconnected in the minds of the military leaders. Thus it can be said that deeper political issues played their part in the commencing of hostilities in Germany as well as religious factors and not an either or scenario suggested in the question.

Join now!

It could be further argued that the simplicity of labeling the opposing sides Protestant and Catholic distorts the political motivations of the Monarchs and Armies involved. Just because a Catholic nation fights a Protestant one does not necessarily mean there are not more important political reasons for doing so rather than just an opposition to a certain faith. It is not the intention of this argument to dismiss the important religious factors involved in the conflict, it’s merely an attempt to provide a balanced response. For example were those European nations that were drawn into the German civil war ...

This is a preview of the whole essay