How significant was the Schmalkaldic League in the spread of Lutheranism in the years 1531-47?
‘The survival and spread of Lutheranism in Germany, in the years 1521–55, owed more to the
support of the German princes than to Charles V’s inability to oppose it effectively.’ How far do
you agree with this statement?
‘The papacy’s failure to respond effectively was the most important reason for the survival of
Lutheranism in Germany in the years 1521-55.’ How far do you agree with this statement?
Factor Why was this significant to the spread & survival of Lutheranism?
Schmalkaldic ● Although the formation of the League (1531) was presented as a defensive move, from the outset it
League acted as a vehicle for the unified and active pursuit of Protestant interests
● The League acted tactically to strengthen Lutheranism, e.g. the Religious Truce of Nuremberg (1532)
suspended Charles V’s actions against League members (in return for military support against the
Turks) and persuaded some of the more cautious Protestant states to join the League
● The League’s success in restoring Duke Ulrich in Wurttemberg (1534) and establishing Lutheranism
as the only permitted religion there proved to be a great boost to Protestant morale and dealt an
enormous blow to Habsburg and Catholic prestige
● Under the influence of the League’s success, Brandenburg (1535) and ducal Saxony (1539) became
Protestant; by 1545 all of north-east and north-west Germany was Protestant as well as large parts of
the south.
● From the outset, the League was, in reality, a fragile alliance since many princes were extremely
reluctant to countenance war against Charles V (despite Luther’s statement that it was morally right in
defence of the Gospel) to further the Lutheran cause and most were likely to put self-interest before
the spread of Lutheranism
● The League’s role was weakened by the bigamy scandal (1540) involving the leading Lutheran prince
Philip of Hesse
● Charles V’s tactics in the 1540s reduced the significance of the League, e.g. he made it clear that he
intended to target only League members who had flouted his authority, thereby ensuring that the more
cautious reformed states remained inactive
● The League’s failure to achieve a rapid victory in 1546 before Charles V’s forces united (and
subsequently defeated the Schmalkaldeners at Muhlberg in 1547) underlined its declining significance
by the mid- 1540s, e.g. lack of effective leadership, no common objective and considerable distrust
between the cities and the princes
● The invasion of Electoral Saxony by the Lutheran prince Duke Maurice of Saxony (1546) did much to
destroy the morale and impetus of the League which had not expected such an attack.
Support of the ● Frederick the Wise of Saxony provided Luther with a safe haven in Saxony
German ● The conversion of individual princes (e.g. Philip of Hesse in 1526) undermined Charles V’s attempts to
Princes suppress Lutheranism
● The Schmalkaldic League (1531) and the Regensburg Colloquy (1541) confirmed the unwillingness of
Protestant princes to compromise
● The success of the second League of Torgau (1550) in challenging Charles V
● Lutheran rulers challenged the Catholic Church’s authority by secularising church lands and by
establishing Lutheran church structures
● The compromise of the Peace of Augsburg (1555), which established a bi-confessional Germany.
● While the influence and leadership of the papacy was central to the Catholic response, practically it
was dependent on the Emperor and the princes either to enforce the Edict of Worms or facilitate
compromise
● Though the princes cited religious grievances as the immediate reason for their unwillingness to effect
the Edict of Worms, political self-interest led many first to protect Lutheranism and then fight on its
behalf
Charles’ ● Charles never exercised more than nominal power over the Holy Roman Empire: power was shared
inability to with princes, knights, church leaders and cities
oppose it ● He was distracted by political and religious difficulties in the Netherlands, and the conflict with Valois
France, especially in Italy
● Charles was also preoccupied with the threat to European security posed by the Ottoman Empire
● Although he had significant military success at Muhlberg (1547) against the Schmalkaldic League, he
‘The survival and spread of Lutheranism in Germany, in the years 1521–55, owed more to the
support of the German princes than to Charles V’s inability to oppose it effectively.’ How far do
you agree with this statement?
‘The papacy’s failure to respond effectively was the most important reason for the survival of
Lutheranism in Germany in the years 1521-55.’ How far do you agree with this statement?
Factor Why was this significant to the spread & survival of Lutheranism?
Schmalkaldic ● Although the formation of the League (1531) was presented as a defensive move, from the outset it
League acted as a vehicle for the unified and active pursuit of Protestant interests
● The League acted tactically to strengthen Lutheranism, e.g. the Religious Truce of Nuremberg (1532)
suspended Charles V’s actions against League members (in return for military support against the
Turks) and persuaded some of the more cautious Protestant states to join the League
● The League’s success in restoring Duke Ulrich in Wurttemberg (1534) and establishing Lutheranism
as the only permitted religion there proved to be a great boost to Protestant morale and dealt an
enormous blow to Habsburg and Catholic prestige
● Under the influence of the League’s success, Brandenburg (1535) and ducal Saxony (1539) became
Protestant; by 1545 all of north-east and north-west Germany was Protestant as well as large parts of
the south.
● From the outset, the League was, in reality, a fragile alliance since many princes were extremely
reluctant to countenance war against Charles V (despite Luther’s statement that it was morally right in
defence of the Gospel) to further the Lutheran cause and most were likely to put self-interest before
the spread of Lutheranism
● The League’s role was weakened by the bigamy scandal (1540) involving the leading Lutheran prince
Philip of Hesse
● Charles V’s tactics in the 1540s reduced the significance of the League, e.g. he made it clear that he
intended to target only League members who had flouted his authority, thereby ensuring that the more
cautious reformed states remained inactive
● The League’s failure to achieve a rapid victory in 1546 before Charles V’s forces united (and
subsequently defeated the Schmalkaldeners at Muhlberg in 1547) underlined its declining significance
by the mid- 1540s, e.g. lack of effective leadership, no common objective and considerable distrust
between the cities and the princes
● The invasion of Electoral Saxony by the Lutheran prince Duke Maurice of Saxony (1546) did much to
destroy the morale and impetus of the League which had not expected such an attack.
Support of the ● Frederick the Wise of Saxony provided Luther with a safe haven in Saxony
German ● The conversion of individual princes (e.g. Philip of Hesse in 1526) undermined Charles V’s attempts to
Princes suppress Lutheranism
● The Schmalkaldic League (1531) and the Regensburg Colloquy (1541) confirmed the unwillingness of
Protestant princes to compromise
● The success of the second League of Torgau (1550) in challenging Charles V
● Lutheran rulers challenged the Catholic Church’s authority by secularising church lands and by
establishing Lutheran church structures
● The compromise of the Peace of Augsburg (1555), which established a bi-confessional Germany.
● While the influence and leadership of the papacy was central to the Catholic response, practically it
was dependent on the Emperor and the princes either to enforce the Edict of Worms or facilitate
compromise
● Though the princes cited religious grievances as the immediate reason for their unwillingness to effect
the Edict of Worms, political self-interest led many first to protect Lutheranism and then fight on its
behalf
Charles’ ● Charles never exercised more than nominal power over the Holy Roman Empire: power was shared
inability to with princes, knights, church leaders and cities
oppose it ● He was distracted by political and religious difficulties in the Netherlands, and the conflict with Valois
France, especially in Italy
● Charles was also preoccupied with the threat to European security posed by the Ottoman Empire
● Although he had significant military success at Muhlberg (1547) against the Schmalkaldic League, he
