The House of Habsburg In the Age of Empire

[volksmarschall]

And once again, religion is the cause of the slaughter of millions. Business as usual.

Religion is hardly the cause of such slaughter. I'm, frankly, tired of hearing this repetitive line over and over. Granted, religion is often used to legitimize violence and adds to war a dimension otherwise not seen (but irreligious fanaticism for political reasons is just as equivalent). I mean, the modern Israeli-Arab conflicts are actually secular in origin (few people bother to note that, and has not been 'going on since the times of the Bible' as many people erroneously belief and report), and only recently has been inclusive of religious language to the conflict -- now that is problem for the peace talks as people claim religious zealotry and attachment to the region which was absent from the conflict from the late 1880s when it began through the 1960s. The Jewish settlers who immigrated through the Aliyah's from the 1880s-1920s were mostly secular, Atheist, and socialist in orientation. The conflict is purely fought over land -- I took 2 courses on the Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts. Much like the Crusades, except for the First, and possibly the Third Crusades, the rest of the Crusades were largely fought for political and prestige purposes. (I plug these since they are often mis-attributed as the 'ideal' case studies of religion and violence).

Contrary to the claims of many talking heads in the media, religion has no more noticeable effect on violence than any other 'secular' or non-religious ideologies. There is much evidence to support a stronger case for religion and nonviolence, e.g. J.K. Kosek "Religion and Non-violence in American History", Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind. Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod's Encyclopedia of War covers nearly 1800 documented wars/conflicts in human history, and list only 123 as being a religious in conflict orientation and nature. Yeah, the 30 Years' War sticks out like a sore thumb, and so will TTL's equivalent, the 40 Years' War. When religion and violence go hand and hand, it is often far brutal than 'basic' war because of the 'divine' attachment to it. This should be explored, and as I hope to convey with my chapter on the religious character of the war. However I say this not as a 'believer' (Catholic), but as a historian. It's tiresome to hear the same repetitive claims with little historical basis to them. The idea that religion begets 'violence as usual' has little acceptability within mainstream academic scholarship.

Sorry about that, but I just can't let that slip.

Yeah it's hard to get used to playing France in EU4, when frank really perfected the feeling you get as a land major of playing a giant with feet of clay. I just can't get used to how easy it is to be OP as any country (which is partially a product of having idea groups rather than ideas--it's easier as France to say, get trading ideas and become the #1 income player because you're ahead of everything else, whereas in the momod you can't even compete with concentrated trading countries because to do so would make it impossible to compete with the countries with 5 army ideas--I mean I got my ass handed to me by the Saxons because I only had 3 army ideas which would never happen in vanilla EU4)

My wars with France, as Austria, often follow a similar pattern. I just checked their ideas, they have Offensive (complete) and Defensive (6 ideas) not quality. Thus, they're 0.5 ahead in the morale department, with a 10% advantage in discipline too. I have to fight them when isolated, and hope, that I can catch a stack of 15,000 or so without a general or a rather poor one, and crush it before they can unify. Their generals are often 1 or 2 value points superior to mine, so I have more emphasis on enticing an attack and hoping for a victory than launching an offensive. Only after I am victorious in defense, can I take the fight to France and amend the warscore and hope for a white peace at best...

Hadn't noticed you had started up another AAR until today, this is one if my favourites yet. Seems the Reformation is spreading surprisingly historically - looking forward to seeing how Austria deals with the coming period.

Why thank you for the kind words Tommy! But before we reach the apocalyptic struggle between German Protestantism and German Catholicism (headed by the Habsburgs), and to a lesser extent, due to interventions and alliances, the inclusion of the conflict with the French and Swedes, we still to get through the momentous and just as terrible Italian Wars, which will be the next chapter after I finish the final editing for the last post on the Reformation, laying the groundworks for Chapter 5: The Counter Reformation.

 

[Merrick Chance']

I think that it's more that once war becomes tangled up into identities then it becomes an existential struggle. We can see the same thing on the Ostfront, the Peloponnesian War, or any number of 3rd world ethnic cleansings. At the same time, though, long wars tend to push militant organizations and individuals into power, who often either have massive far reaching goals for the war (exterminationism), or are simply more interested in having the war continue in order to keep their hold of power. I think that the length of the Arab-Israeli conflict has more to do with this than religion, combined with the impossible to defend borders of the Middle East.

But you have the same issues in Germany, where it was easy to see the 40 Years War as an existential one because many of the 'countries' of the HRE were militarily porous at best, and the story of the major players of the war is a story of the constant sidelining of potential peacemakers (most notably Wallenstein)

 

[volksmarschall]

I think that it's more that once war becomes tangled up into identities then it becomes an existential struggle. We can see the same thing on the Ostfront, the Peloponnesian War, or any number of 3rd world ethnic cleansings. At the same time, though, long wars tend to push militant organizations and individuals into power, who often either have massive far reaching goals for the war (exterminationism), or are simply more interested in having the war continue in order to keep their hold of power. I think that the length of the Arab-Israeli conflict has more to do with this than religion, combined with the impossible to defend borders of the Middle East.

But you have the same issues in Germany, where it was easy to see the 40 Years War as an existential one because many of the 'countries' of the HRE were militarily porous at best, and the story of the major players of the war is a story of the constant sidelining of potential peacemakers (most notably Wallenstein)

The problem is that wars tend to always try and play upon religion and religious conviction once a conflict begins, especially when the states are of differing religious orientation to gain a certain legitimacy and patriotism (as naturally one should expect). I was pleased when Dr. Philip Jenkins released his book The Great Holy War (examining religion in WWI) because I had just written a paper, about a month and half prior to his book's release, about the same topic focusing on how German and British Orientalists drew upon religious imagery and conviction for their involvement in the region. When you read the primary documents of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, there is little talk of religion as a motivation for the conflicts. Only after the Six Day War and the religious 're-awakening' of a predominately secular Israel and then the rise of "Islamic" Fundamentalism afterward brought religion into the already nearly 100 year conflict in greater Palestine. Not to mention the USSR really built Israel from 1948-1967 because they believed Israel to be a secular socialist state (hell, they armed the Israeli's in 1947-1948 and prodded the Arab nations into war in 1967 with deliberate false intelligence). Per the Soviets, it is funny that the staunchly Atheist USSR (de jure), with the threat of Nazism, then uses the Orthodox Church as a tool for patriotism and ended its persecution of the Church, and rather, saw the Church (as so many states have always seen religion) as a powerful tool to achieve greater ends. And likewise, the Nazi's use the Christian Churches in Germany to achieve their ends as well.

Just like here in the USA. Yeah, we have a de jure separation of Church and State, but just look at all the pandering Presidents and our government does to Churches/religions to achieve political goals. While I do share the "liberal" aims concerning immigration, I do not necessarily enjoy the Obama Administration going to mostly Mainline Churches and the Catholic Church to achieve its hopes concerning immigration just like how I loathed the Bush Administration and Republicans pandering to Evangelicals and the 'pro-Israel' lobby. If the Church and church members feel motivated to help the humanitarian crisis, which it is, along our border, I'm fine with that. But I'm also a very strong secularist, insofar that I see a separation between temporal matters and spiritual matters -- much like Saint Augustine and his City of God, since that's what secularism actually is -- not irreligion like many erroneously think or claim. The great liberal FDR was the strongest proponent of a de facto elimination of Church and State to achieve his political goals and usher in a general Protestant civil religion, thankfully, it never came to be (not to mention the great VP Henry A. Wallace's Speech in 1942 was riddled with Christian imagery and symbolism).

Wallenstein is really one of the tragic heroes of the Thirty Years' War. Needless to say, I have several 'in-game' characters already slatted to bear the brunt of the similar fate of Wallestein, including one of my in-game generals. In fact, it is rather convenient for me, in the prospective write-up, that the Forty Years' War will come to an end right when I was able to select the HRE reform that prevents wars among HRE members. Thus, whatever TTL "Peace of Westphalia" will be, I thought it great that I also had the HRE reform to back it up.

And per the Arab-Israeli Conflict, I find it interesting, although altogether not that surprising, the strongest, not necessarily 'pro-Israeli' but 'actions justified', support comes from the more educated community, i.e., undergrads and post-grads. For whatever reason, certainly not all are studying the conflict, there tends to be stronger support to see Israel's actions as justified with greater levels of education. Just like how I find it interested that, while most American postgrads still identify with some form of religious orientation (even though they are also more likely to be irreligious), the most educated 'religious believers' are also the one's with more likelihood of attendance and actual membership than the working-class, which is generally seen as being the more religious group (at least per their word, not necessarily in membership and attendance). This one is outdated, but I remember reading an Atlantic Article back in 2012 that said the same thing.

 

[GulMacet]

I didn't say a word about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am not against religion in general, what a person believes in (or doesn't believe in) is their private matter. I am, however, against the concepts of organized religion and religion in politics, for I think they do cause or at least facilitate violence.

In addition, I apologize for being unclear and somewhat polemic in my initial post, and I realize being deliberately overdramatic doesn't carry that well in a text medium.

 

[volksmarschall]

I didn't say a word about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am not against religion in general, what a person believes in (or doesn't believe in) is their private matter. I am, however, against the concepts of organized religion and religion in politics, for I think they do cause or at least facilitate violence.

In addition, I apologize for being unclear and somewhat polemic in my initial post, and I realize being deliberately overdramatic doesn't carry that well in a text medium.

I know you didn't bring up the Arab-Israeli Conflict, but apropos your post, which was vague and unclear, I took that time to comment on it as, someone who took a year in the university to study the conflict, it is hardly rooted in religion and has been a war fought entirely over land, and only recently has come to include an added religious dimension to it. Since this conflict is often the poster child for "religion kills," completely and utterly absurd for those who study the conflict, I thought I'd use to illustrate the example against what you had said.

Applying the principle of equal assertion, I'm against organized politics since organized politics has facilitated more violence, death, and racism than any other belief system in the history of human civilization. Organized religion does not facilitate violence at any greater level than other belief systems that's just a complete and utter myth with no data to support it despite popular opinion. Organized politics kills more than religion, just look at the two horrendous world wars of the past century. 4 of the 5 largest charitable organizations are religious based charities, The Chronicle of Philanthropy research data, from 2012 highlights just how extensive religious based charity is. Although, I do share your concern for the union of religion and politics.

 

[volksmarschall]

Chapter 3

Therefore, it seems more likely that the strong embrace of Catholicism by the Habsburgs was not out of an over excited love or adoration of the Catholic faith, although it certainly could have been that, but in the strength the Church provided for the stability and power of the Habsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire. The Roman Catholic Church was the most politically powerful institution in Europe, even into the early sixteenth century, although the Reformation was chipping away at its monopoly of control over Christendom. The Habsburgs meanwhile, saw the Church as the bulwark to defend the ancient order. And vise-versa, the Church saw the Habsburgs as their strongest supporters in an age of religious confusion, revolution, and renaissance.

Pope Julius was even seen as a member of the Habsburg Family, by his detractors, for his close relationship with emperors Maximilian and Matthew. Matthew even began to construct the a new Papal Palace for the Popes in Klagenfurt, following the tradition set forth in France and the construction of the Avignon Palaces for the Avignon Popes who provided the political and religious legitimization of French ambitions with the promise of always remaining faithful Catholics. In part, the Avignon Papacy can be seen as having held influence over France’s sudden shift from being the “Favorite Daughter” of the Vatican to the bastion of the Reformed faith. The Papal Palace at Klagenfurt started construction in 1513, and would not be fully completed until 1627, long after the end of the Habsburg Papacy in 1539, although the partially completed castle highlighting the unity between Rome and Vienna would be the seat for the Ecumenical Council (of Klagenfurt) that would condemn the Reformation and lay the foundation for the Counter-Reformation.

The Klagenfurt Papal Palace, although certain less in splendor and tradition as St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, was just as lofty and beautiful – especially once finally completed. The intention behind Matthew’s funding of the project was to build a semi-permanent seat for the Pope in Habsburg lands. The reaction to the construction in the Protestant world was to be predicted, as they saw this move as further proof of the apostasy of the Church and the corrupting influence of the Habsburgs in leading the Church down the path of damnation. For Matthew however, the seminal achievement of his entire reign many not have been his integration of Hungary as part of the Habsburg crownlands, but in the construction of the Papal Palace at Klagenfurt and securing the future Council of Klagenfurt, although his younger brother Charles was emperor when the council convened in 1521, Matthew having died in just weeks before the official Vatican envoy was to arrive. When they did arrive, and the content of the council will be covered in Chapter 5, the deceased emperor received a special dispensation by Pope Martin VI, elected as Julius’s successor in 1518, who also had close ties to Habsburgs until his death in 1537 which marks the end of nearly 50 years of the so-called Habsburg Papacy of Popes Pius III, Gregory XIII, Julius II, and Martin VI (the latter two being the most visible of the Habsburg Popes for the sheer fact that both reigned for a total of 39 of the 45 years of the four Holy Fathers.

The Papal Palace at Klagenfurt, like the Papal Palace at Avignon, was meant to be as an additional seat for the Pope and the College of Cardinals.​

The dangers of the Protestant Reformation are not only seen in the newfound rivalries between Protestant Germany and Calvinist France with Catholic Austria and the Habsburg dominions, nor in the threat of Protestantism in the de-stabilization of the Holy Roman Empire, but in the threat that Protestantism provided in Hungary. The Hungarian city of Pozsony, today Bratislava, was a beacon of Reformed thinking and Calvinist religion within the Habsburg Monarchy. The city, along with Paris, shared the title “The Calvinist Rome,” for its importance and contributions to Reformed theology and thinking during the Reformation. Hungary, Switzerland, France, and Southern Wallonia were the bastions of Calvinism in Europe. However, unlike in France, where Calvinism was still closely linked to the Valois Monarchy, thus, the National Reformed Church of France – the Huguenots, were the least radical of the Calvinist groups.[1] In Hungary, Hungarian Calvinists saw Calvinism as a new medium to emerge as an independent kingdom once again.

The Reformed Church in Hungary, although outlawed by the Habsburgs, still managed to have a certain degree of toleration – in the sense that the Habsburgs were petrified to move against the popular religion, especially in Pozsony for fear of outright revolution. As Catholic Churches were seized and turned into Calvinist houses of worship, Hungarian Calvinist preachers and theologians condemned monarchy (although to hide their true sentiments, never mentioned the Habsburgs by name) as a leftover remnant of the Roman Empire that had crucified Jesus of Nazareth so brutally in First Century Jerusalem. Caesar, the code word for the Habsburg emperor, was a Pagan title meant for Pagan kings and had always been opposed to the true Christian religion (spiritual Protestantism/Calvinism), and all true Christians should do their duty to end idolatry to these Pagan leaders and institutions (calling for the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and an end to Habsburg rule over Hungary).

The Habsburgs were not dumb to the realization of the radicalism of Calvinism in Hungary, but, as the radicalism became more pronounced by the 1530s, and especially the later sixteenth century, the Habsburgs could do little to stop this proliferation of radical political sentiment and thinking. Coming out of the bloodletting of the Second and Third Italian Wars, and with the fears of a Turkish invasion – the last thing on the mind of Emperor Charles I was stoking the hornet’s nest in Hungary and having to face a large force of rebellious Hungarian Protestants, also giving greater reason for the Turks to invade.

Theodore Beza, a Reformed Calvinist reformer visited Pozsony, Hungary, the seat of Reformed Calvinism in Hungary. Right, the emblem of the Reformed Church of Hungary. Hungary was a hub, like Bohemia, for Protestantism and particularly Calvinism. Unlike in Bohemia, whose Hussite traditions and crypto-Lutheranism was constantly confronted by the Habsburgs, the Reformed Church of Hungary was often left alone with the fear that persecution would lead to a large Protestant Hungarian uprising against the Catholic Habsburgs.​

Thus, Pozsony became a safe hub of Calvinist political and intellectual thinking. Even the French theologian, Theodore Beza, who became a close associate and promoter of the Valois as agents of God against the apostate agents of Rome, travelled to the city for study and for documenting some of the Calvinist tendencies coming out of the Eastern Calvinist Rome (as opposed to Paris being the Calvinist Rome of the West). Beza noted:

The tendency of the Reformed Church in Hungary is one of anti-monarchial sentiment. For them, the Habsburgs are the embodiment of the anti-Christ, actively subverting the interests and lives of the Christian people under their domain. Worst, they have kept the wool over the eyes of otherwise faithful but misguided people [speaking of the vast majority of the Catholic laity]. However, I would assert that aspects of their [political] theology is rooted in their hopeful dreams of independence and a restoration of the Hungarian crown to a Hungarian nobleman, who would, I presume, be some sort of Protestant. The beauty and faith of the convicted masses here is something to admire. Even back home [speaking of France], where a substantial population of the peasants and even some of the nobles remain Roman, there is not a single Roman in the confines of the city. If there are, they certainly won’t make their presence known. In nearly a year here, I have not yet come across a single person who was not a Protestant of some type, and the majority belongs to the Reformed Church.

Reformed Calvinism was taking a strong anti-Catholic and anti-Habsburg, and therefore an anti-monarchical tone by the middle of the sixteenth century. Without surprise, Reformed Calvinism was the popular religion of the Republic of Switzerland and the independent republican city of Ulm. While this was worrisome in France, the French Monarchy closely aligned itself with Calvinism as the "Protector of the Reformed Church in France and abroad" to prevent itself from becoming a political enemy of the Reformed faith. In additional, the French monarchy maneuvered itself in opposition to the Catholic Church, the Habsburgs, and the future Counter Reformation to keep the anti-monarchical overtones of Calvinism from sweeping into the popular theology of French Huguenots.

***​

It might be appropriate to outline here, some of the differences and misnomers about Protestantism. In truth, there has never been a creature known as a Protestant. Protestantism is an umbrella term, rooted in the prefix Protest(er) of the Roman Catholic Church. There are Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Calvinists, etc., all of whom are only closely linked by the term Protestant as they all broke, in one way or another, with the Roman Church. There are certain similarities found within global Protestantism: The Bible as the highest authority of man’s spirituality, a general rejection of Transubstantiation, however, Lutherans and Anglicans do believe in the real-presence of Christ at the taking of Holy Communion, while it is the Calvinists who outright reject this teaching as something pagan – rather, the act of Communion is purely symbolic. Luther’s teaching, known as consubstantiation, is the belief that Christ’s spirit, his body and blood (as a form of spiritualism) is, in fact, present during the taking of communion. During his debates with Zwingli, Luther famously shouted, “ad hoc corpus meum”, (this is my body).[2] Furthermore, the most obvious unity among Protestantism is they are free of the Magisterium in Rome – and thereby, not subject to Canon Law, doctrine, or decrees.

Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and French Calvinism were part of the Magisterial Reformation., and thus, had a close relationship with the state and nobility, and often were instituted as a state religion of the land. Hungarian Calvinism, to a lesser extent Swiss Calvinism, and the various non-conformist sects: like Anabaptism, Baptism, and congregationalism were all part of the Radical Reformation and rejected secular authority and influence over the Christian community and were never instituted as state religions, although this did not stop nobles and princes from embracing these sects for both sincere and political reasons. One of the major differentiations between the Lutherans and Anglican branches of Protestantism with the Calvinist variety was in their retention of the sacraments: like the hierarchal priesthood, Communion, and confession of sins. Calvinists, by contrast, rejected all the sacraments as stuff of mere tradition – nothing divinely ordained by God as Sacramental theology proclaimed. For some, the Calvinists were the first revolutionaries, and this is especially true in the eyes of the Habsburgs – who saw Hungarian Calvinists, and the ambitions of Calvinist France as something that would upset the divinely ordained social order that they had come to be masters over. However, with the coming Counter Reformation starting with the Council of Klagenfurt (see Chapter 5) – a coming political and military conflict between Protestants and Catholics would soon erupt in Greater Germany.

>>> Continue to Chapter 4: The Italian Wars​

[1]This is not true for OTL. Calvinists of all stripes were the most militant because of the political oppression they faced. This is part of the reason for their anti-Monarchial attitudes. To reflect the fact that France, rather quickly, embraced the Reformed Faith, and is monarchy, while the Reformed faith in Wallonnia is held by “Protestant” Burgundy, Switzerland is a Republic, and Hungary is under my control, the Calvinists in France are going to be moderated while the Calvinists outside of France, and in Switzerland, pioneer Calvinist anti-Monarchial thought and sentiment.

[2]John Chapter 6:54-55, Jesus states, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” This was considered heresy by the Jews, and is the only moment in the gospels when Jesus actually losses followers. This passage has been cited by the Orthodox, Catholic, and “High” Protestant traditions (the Lutherans and Anglicans) as evidence for the “real presence” of Christ at Communion. Calvinists reject the passage, and often cite Luke 22:19, “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me’”, citing the “remembrance of me” as the basis for their understanding that Communion is a symbolic act of Christian unity and spirituality. The Lutheran belief of consubstantiation is very commonly held in “High” Church Protestant traditions, like Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Methodism. The symbolic communion of Calvin’s teachings are common in moderate and conservative Reformed circles.

 

[Enewald]

Ah, Turks doing something cool soon? Can't have a pan-European religious war without some heathens included!

 

[GulMacet]

I know you didn't bring up the Arab-Israeli Conflict, but apropos your post, which was vague and unclear, I took that time to comment on it as, someone who took a year in the university to study the conflict, it is hardly rooted in religion and has been a war fought entirely over land, and only recently has come to include an added religious dimension to it. Since this conflict is often the poster child for "religion kills," completely and utterly absurd for those who study the conflict, I thought I'd use to illustrate the example against what you had said.

Applying the principle of equal assertion, I'm against organized politics since organized politics has facilitated more violence, death, and racism than any other belief system in the history of human civilization. Organized religion does not facilitate violence at any greater level than other belief systems that's just a complete and utter myth with no data to support it despite popular opinion. Organized politics kills more than religion, just look at the two horrendous world wars of the past century. 4 of the 5 largest charitable organizations are religious based charities, The Chronicle of Philanthropy research data, from 2012 highlights just how extensive religious based charity is. Although, I do share your concern for the union of religion and politics.

I have to disagree here - you seem to assert (please correct me if I'm wrong) that organized religion and organized politics are two different things, but I believe organized religion is merely a subdivision of organized politics. Organized anything - football (see Qatar World Cup), corporations, hobbies, etc. - requires administration, administration requires hierarchy, and hierarchy means opportunities for corruption, favouritism, powermongering... the very essence of politics! You cannot have separation of religion and state (note that I did not say separation of church and state, as I believe such a thing is impossible - if you have a church, it will always try to insert itself into the state) and organized religion. They are mutually exclusive. If you have organized religion, the people in the organization responsible for the doctrine of that religion (be they Lamas, Pastors, Popes, Patriarchs, Imams or what have you) dictate 'proper' belief, and will insert their own political views in their religion - something which goes completely against my idea of freedom of religion (you can believe in whatever you want and no one has the right to force their beliefs on you)!

As for religious charities, I'm using the Catholic Church as a counterexample because I live in a Catholic country and that's the one I am most familiar with. Now, I could bring up things like Crusades, Inquisition (Papal - not Spanish), Thirty Years War and so on, but you would respond that was centuries ago and the Church has changed considerably since than, and you would be correct. So I'm using a current one.
Yes, the Catholic Church uses its massive wealth and power (what did Jesus say about poverty again?) to fund and develop charities. No one denies that. But at the same time, they are running a campaign against the use of condoms in Africa (because birth control is EVIL!). As a result of this campaign, millions of good Catholics in Africa have died and are dying horrible, slow and painful deaths right now due to what would be easily preventable sexually transmitted diseases. But they believe in the Church, so they don't use condoms and the diseases spread like wildfire. Both the current pope and his predecessor have repeatedly made public statements supporting the Church's stance on condoms, so it's not like they are unaware of the issue. To use a crude analogy, John Wayne Gacy was a nice guy and community volunteer - but also a serial killer, and all the nice things he did don't make him any less guilty. That's how I view the Church.

 

[volksmarschall]

Ah, Turks doing something cool soon? Can't have a pan-European religious war without some heathens included!

No. A Christian Holy League with Austria and Spain and the head are already embroiled in a conflict with the Turks on a repeated basis, but I'm not sure we'll get to that anytime soon...

I have to disagree here - you seem to assert (please correct me if I'm wrong) that organized religion and organized politics are two different things, but I believe organized religion is merely a subdivision of organized politics. Organized anything - football (see Qatar World Cup), corporations, hobbies, etc. - requires administration, administration requires hierarchy, and hierarchy means opportunities for corruption, favouritism, powermongering... the very essence of politics! You cannot have separation of religion and state (note that I did not say separation of church and state, as I believe such a thing is impossible - if you have a church, it will always try to insert itself into the state) and organized religion. They are mutually exclusive. If you have organized religion, the people in the organization responsible for the doctrine of that religion (be they Lamas, Pastors, Popes, Patriarchs, Imams or what have you) dictate 'proper' belief, and will insert their own political views in their religion - something which goes completely against my idea of freedom of religion (you can believe in whatever you want and no one has the right to force their beliefs on you)!

As for religious charities, I'm using the Catholic Church as a counterexample because I live in a Catholic country and that's the one I am most familiar with. Now, I could bring up things like Crusades, Inquisition (Papal - not Spanish), Thirty Years War and so on, but you would respond that was centuries ago and the Church has changed considerably since than, and you would be correct. So I'm using a current one.
Yes, the Catholic Church uses its massive wealth and power (what did Jesus say about poverty again?) to fund and develop charities. No one denies that. But at the same time, they are running a campaign against the use of condoms in Africa (because birth control is EVIL!). As a result of this campaign, millions of good Catholics in Africa have died and are dying horrible, slow and painful deaths right now due to what would be easily preventable sexually transmitted diseases. But they believe in the Church, so they don't use condoms and the diseases spread like wildfire. Both the current pope and his predecessor have repeatedly made public statements supporting the Church's stance on condoms, so it's not like they are unaware of the issue. To use a crude analogy, John Wayne Gacy was a nice guy and community volunteer - but also a serial killer, and all the nice things he did don't make him any less guilty. That's how I view the Church.

I, particularly, don't care to continue with this conversation since it distracts from the content of the AAR, which is what I'd prefer all commentary to actually be on (or interwoven commentary between readers/commentators talking about whatever it is that long dialogue begets). I'll just say in closing, if your view that religion begets violence greater than anything else, or that "religion" and the "state" are not two different things, just go read some Plato or Aristotle to see that they saw a separation between temporal political matters and 'spiritual/religious' matters -- I know of no serious academic in the history discipline, political science, or religious scholarship world that holds to what you seem to believe. Does it make it right? Certainly not, but I'll take the modern scholarship of professionals in the field contrary to my own opinion. Max Weber's Politics as Vocation is completely the opposite of what you believe.

If you want to, we can have this discussion through PM, but I already think it has gone too far on the pages of the AAR. Plus, I'd hate to have this conversation sour our friendship GulMacet, or at least your greatly appreciated presence on my AARs!

 

[LanMisa]

Question: Seeing your vast knowledge about the different (Protestant) religions in this game, how would you change the implementation of "Protestantism" in this game, if you could - especially if you add Calvinism/Reformed to the number of protestant beliefs in Europe? Should Paradox reduce it to only one "Protestant/Reformed/Not Catholic" belief with different boni you can choose from? Should more religions be added into the game (like Lutherianism, Anglicism, Hugenotism, Hussitism) that have similar/different boni and "accept" each other as well as the reformed church? Leave everything as it is? Changing religion completely?

 

[volksmarschall]

Question: Seeing your vast knowledge about the different (Protestant) religions in this game, how would you change the implementation of "Protestantism" in this game, if you could - especially if you add Calvinism/Reformed to the number of protestant beliefs in Europe? Should Paradox reduce it to only one "Protestant/Reformed/Not Catholic" belief with different boni you can choose from? Should more religions be added into the game (like Lutherianism, Anglicism, Hugenotism, Hussitism) that have similar/different boni and "accept" each other as well as the reformed church? Leave everything as it is? Changing religion completely?

Well, I'm glad to know that the Seminary is paying off (although I'm in for academic work and not pastoral or anything like that). The real problem is we tend to see Protestantism as a monolithic entity, which of course, it isn't. A Protestant, strictly speaking, never has existed in history. They are Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Calvinist, and their associated branches: Presbyterian, Congregationalist, etc. From my looking at "Protestantism" contrary to "Reformed" as it is listed in the game, Protestantism is meant to be Lutheranism. Of course, Lutheranism, Calvinism, even Anglicanism, have major theological, political, and economic, let alone sacramental differences that is hard, for me as a historian, to gloss over even per the contents of writing about the Reformation, CR, and political theology even in an AAR. I would prefer if Paradox added more flavors of Protestantism in the game just as you mentioned. Lutheranism was very egalitarian and pro-monarchy and thus, had a close relationship with the state (some revisionist scholars are claiming, and I think rightly so, that the 95 Theses and Luther's teachings are proto-socialism, which might explain why Lutheran countries in Europe tend to be more egalitarian and 'socialist' in culture and economics -- Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.). Calvinism (Reformed in the game, more generic) was different. It was egalitarian in a spiritual sense, but as all good historians and sociologists know, fostered the modern foundations for liberal democracy and capitalism (God doesn't forsake his Elect, thus, the material well-off must clearly be the chosen ones, etc.). Calvinism was very anti-Monarchical, which is why it was favored in Switzerland, Hungary, and the Netherlands historically. Anglicanism, at least if we're talking the Anglicanism post Westminster Confessions whereby the Church of England embraced aspects of the Reformation rather than being a break-away Cahtolic church which it was when it was started, is a cross between Lutheranism and Calvinism. The Westminster Confession is a "Calvinist-light" declaration, but also has very clear elements of Lutheranism in it. Of course, with France going Reformed, I need to re-write why they won't experience the anti-monarchy sentiment found in Calvinism as you find in Holland, Switzerland, and Hungary (historically).

I would prefer Hussitism for Bohemia, and I'll be referring to the Protestants in Bohemia as the Hussites since I think its appropriate. I would love to see the added flavor of the Radical Reformers: The Baptists, Anabaptists, Mennonites, etc., who completely rejected any secular authority over religious matters (one of the reasons why these traditions, less so the Baptists nowadays as they've grown in stature, withdrew from the world and today, their descendants don't even pay taxes to the federal government nor vote in our elections, at least here in the USA -- like the Amish, as that would be seen as violation of their religious convictions). If it was up to me, I would re-write to add more flavoring to religion in the game. Just like how, as I'll be writing with the Counter Reformation, you had three wings in the Catholic Church: The Humanists (like Erasmus and St. Thomas More and the old Renaissance Catholicism of men like Lorenzo Valla), a moderate wing (actually, Martin Luther was a Catholic Moderate at the beginning of the Reformation) -- these men agreed with the principles that the Church hierarchy needed reform, but didn't want to break away with the Church, nor, later, wanted to concede that Protestants were on equal footing with Catholics (the Jesuits are probably a good example of this group, more intellectual in their fighting of Protestantism than physical). The last wing, the "Militant" wing, if you will, saw Protestantism not only a heresy but something that needed to be eradicated for the sake of Christian unity and "the true faith." Essentially, the moderates and militants won out by the Council of Trent and the humanists were generally either shunned, some even excommunicated. As time went on, especially by Vatican II, you can notice a shift back to the humanist tradition of the Church, and the "traditionalists" are a bit upset. As a Catholic myself, I consider myself a humanist but liturgical conservative (I do prefer the Latin Mass instead of the vernacular, but I'm a universalist in my own theological soteriology and a strong humanist vis-a-vis this tradition of Valla, More, Erasmus, or even Michel de Montaigne; the Catholic Catechism is essentially a universalist document, it just falls short of admitting it).

Granted, you can add this flavor, to a degree, with national ideas (like being a Catholic Country and then taking Humanist ideas to reflect the Humanist wing winning the debate), I would, for historicity, have liked to see a more dynamic inclusion of religion. I must admit, writing about it in broad terms may not be the best way to go about things, since I also want to convey the real and wide-ranging debate during this era. Of course, as Catholic Habsburg Austria, we will not be taking the humanist route.

 

[Enewald]

MEIOU used to have Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, Reformed, Anglicans, Gallicans, Lollard...
Then they all had their own religious rebels.
(Divine Wind version at least)

 

[Metternich30]

The new Papal Palace is in Vulgaria? :laugh:

Anyway, would the Church of Calvinist France bear some similarities to the Church of England? Given, I imagine, the French monarchy wouldn't be too keen to dismantle the entire French episcopacy, and would similarly likely be aiming for some form of compromise, in an attempt to conciliate the different strands of religious opinion within the country, as the Elizabethan Church settlement attempted to do, with moderate success (although, of course, that was brought about by its own unique combination of factors, which one can only assume wouldn't apply to France in this timeline).

 

[volksmarschall]

MEIOU used to have Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, Reformed, Anglicans, Gallicans, Lollard...
Then they all had their own religious rebels.
(Divine Wind version at least)

Yeah, the generic term "Protestant" keeps a simplicity to the game, which is something I enjoy about EU4 (although really, it does have very complex and intricate forms like Game Theory with regards to the Trade mechanics, which I, as an economist, greatly appreciate and love). I think I'll actually have the problem when writing, since I'll be using the term Protestant somewhat loosely, in part, because when I mean Protestant for the German or Swedish state, I mean Lutheran. When I use the term Protestant in Bohemia, I mean Hussite. When I use Protestant/Calvinist/Huguenot for France, I mean the Reformed Church/Huguenot Church in France... It would all be easier if we had Anglican, Lutheran, Hussite, Presbyterian, Calvinist/Reformed (okay, that one is actually pretty well-scripted but still doesn't include the different Calvinist traditions: Presbyterianism (Scotland), Congregationalism (Puritanism >> England/Calvinist wing of the CoE) etc.

The new Papal Palace is in Vulgaria? :laugh:

Anyway, would the Church of Calvinist France bear some similarities to the Church of England? Given, I imagine, the French monarchy wouldn't be too keen to dismantle the entire French episcopacy, and would similarly likely be aiming for some form of compromise, in an attempt to conciliate the different strands of religious opinion within the country, as the Elizabethan Church settlement attempted to do, with moderate success (although, of course, that was brought about by its own unique combination of factors, which one can only assume wouldn't apply to France in this timeline).

You know what, I suppose you can exactly say that Metternich! The crux of having to try and elaborate why Calvinism in France doesn't take the same anti-monarchical tone as it did historically, and as it will as it is the favored religion of Switzerland and Ulm (republics) and parts of Hungary (as the Hungarians wanted their independence from Habsburg rule) will probably follow the same line vis-a-vis the CoE. Although, the Church of England had the benefit of being, for about 30 years, just a breakaway Catholic Church before the Westminster Confession established a more formal church blending its Catholic traditions with a more Protestant appeal from Luther, while mixing the theology of Calvin. Plus, the rise of Parliamentarian politics in England is a result, at least among from the historians and political scientists I read, a result of the growing influence of the Calvinist (anti-monarchy) tradition within the Church of England. After all, the Constitution of England is still the most anti-Catholic document in Europe -- which forbids any Catholic (or Protestant with close Catholic relatives via the line of succession) from ever inheriting the English Crown. This is why the Church of England will never re-unite with Rome, even though there are other reasons why this won't happen. Any talk of such reunification overlooks this part of the English Constitution. Just like how the English Common Law will prevent England (at the very least England) from ever becoming a fully integrated state of the EU, if the EU moves in that direction.

I might borrow your statement now for the future!

 

[Metternich30]

Yeah, the generic term "Protestant" keeps a simplicity to the game, which is something I enjoy about EU4 (although really, it does have very complex and intricate forms like Game Theory with regards to the Trade mechanics, which I, as an economist, greatly appreciate and love). I think I'll actually have the problem when writing, since I'll be using the term Protestant somewhat loosely, in part, because when I mean Protestant for the German or Swedish state, I mean Lutheran. When I use the term Protestant in Bohemia, I mean Hussite. When I use Protestant/Calvinist/Huguenot for France, I mean the Reformed Church/Huguenot Church in France... It would all be easier if we had Anglican, Lutheran, Hussite, Presbyterian, Calvinist/Reformed (okay, that one is actually pretty well-scripted but still doesn't include the different Calvinist traditions: Presbyterianism (Scotland), Congregationalism (Puritanism >> England/Calvinist wing of the CoE) etc.



You know what, I suppose you can exactly say that Metternich! The crux of having to try and elaborate why Calvinism in France doesn't take the same anti-monarchical tone as it did historically, and as it will as it is the favored religion of Switzerland and Ulm (republics) and parts of Hungary (as the Hungarians wanted their independence from Habsburg rule) will probably follow the same line vis-a-vis the CoE. Although, the Church of England had the benefit of being, for about 30 years, just a breakaway Catholic Church before the Westminster Confession established a more formal church blending its Catholic traditions with a more Protestant appeal from Luther, while mixing the theology of Calvin. Plus, the rise of Parliamentarian politics in England is a result, at least among from the historians and political scientists I read, a result of the growing influence of the Calvinist (anti-monarchy) tradition within the Church of England. After all, the Constitution of England is still the most anti-Catholic document in Europe -- which forbids any Catholic (or Protestant with close Catholic relatives via the line of succession) from ever inheriting the English Crown. This is why the Church of England will never re-unite with Rome, even though there are other reasons why this won't happen. Any talk of such reunification overlooks this part of the English Constitution. Just like how the English Common Law will prevent England (at the very least England) from ever becoming a fully integrated state of the EU, if the EU moves in that direction.

I might borrow your statement now for the future!

Well, I'm glad to have been a source of 'inspiration' for you . In truth, if the Papacy is in the pocket of the Habsburgs, then there's a perfectly sound reason for the King of France to decide to break from the Catholic Church as a whole, provided that he was a temperamental as Henry VIII (and when he broke with Rome, the Pope wasn't even, as such, in the pocket of the Habsburg's; he was instead, temporarily at least, a prisoner). Then, perhaps, Calvinist influences can start creeping into the Church. After all, when Henry broke with Rome, pretty much the sole reason for his doing so was his refusal to be bound by the decisions of the Pope; he always remained, to his death, a Catholic in all but one matter. However, certain ministers of his (Cromwell, Archbishop Cranmer etc) were of course reformers, and thus they were able to sneak certain elements of Lutheran teaching into he Church, until of course they were undone, briefly, by the religious conservatives at court (Bishop Gardiner etc). I can imagine a similar line of evolution following in France. Incidentally, is England still Catholic, or has it gone over to the dark side. Oddly enough, whenever I play it seems that England remains Catholic for whatever reason. Luck, I suppose.

 

[GreatUberGeek]

So, for the Magisterial and the Radical Reformations, will there be any conflict between the two and will the Habsburgs have anything to do with it? Either way, Austria has a lot of enemies on every side, and this war is shaping up to be rather bloody.

 

[volksmarschall]

Chapter 4

Chapter IV: The Italian Wars, a Revolution in European Warfare

The Master of Italy will control the balance of power in Europe.
-Emperor Matthew I von Habsburg, on the eve of the Second Italian War, 1510​

The Italian Wars (1503-1555) were among the most important conflicts in human history. For over five decades, the great powers of Europe, and the two larger Italian states of Venice and Naples struggled for control and hegemony over Italy. The genesis of the conflict is rooted not in the First Italian War, in which the Habsburgs briefly became the dukes of Ferrera, but in the decline of the Kingdom of Burgundy and the rise of both Valois France and Habsburg Austria. France and Austria had been along a road that would lead them to conflict: the French were arguably the most powerful kingdom on the continent, while the Habsburgs presided over the most ancient of continental orders and had spread their family members across the whole of Europe. When the Protestant Reformation began, France became a hub of Calvinist thinking, while the Habsburgs remained staunchly loyal to Catholicism and the Roman Church. As such, the two now met at the crossroads that would dominate continental European politics for the next two centuries: Reformed France and Catholic Austria for supremacy of Europe.

Northern Italy was part of the Holy Roman Empire, and Matthew I had a paternalistic impulse over the region. As the duke of Ferrera, he had a small enclave of that was considered part of the neu kronländer, “new crownland” that the Habsburg Archduke of Austria would be personal ruler over - although it was likely that a lesser son or younger brother would actually reside in the estate and monitor the daily politics. Some historians have suggested the Second Italian War has its roots in the conquest of Genoa by the Kingdom of Provence, a French satellite state in 1509. This belief has its own merits, but falls short of the wider picture. The Habsburgs had long wanted control of Northern Italy, and Venice and Milan, who held regional power in the north, with Venice being rightly considered a great power, were allied with Provence. Thus, it is more appropriate that the fall of Genoa was the casus belli for war, while Matthew and the Habsburg Court truly wanted a means to take Northern Italy. In the later wars, it was France who sought to seek domination, mainly of Milan, which would perpetuate the conflict.

The Italian Wars are also important in the evolution of Italy, as a peninsula and as a political system. Italian politics is complex and confusing, made up of many countries at the time, many of them part of the Holy Roman Empire, and others not. Venice, the Papal States, and Naples were not part of the ancient order, while the larger states of Milan, Savoy, and the smaller states of Genoa, Modena, Tuscany, and the city-state of Pisa were. The Italian states, a collective term used to describe this disunited Italy, was dominated by four major powers: The Habsburgs (indirectly through the Habsburg Papacy, nearly a century of Habsburg dominance over the Vatican) and by the privilege of the Habsburg Archduke of Austria also serving as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the Valois (indirectly through their satellite of Provence and ally of Savoy, both of whom were actively working against Habsburg interests), the Republic of Venice, the most powerful of the Italian states, and the Kingdom of Naples, which had recently won its independence from the Kingdom of Castile-Aragon – not in part thanks to France, who also saw Naples as a sort of satellite and client kingdom whom they held great sway over. The Italian Wars would change the political landscape of Italy. The Republic of Venice fell and became a Kingdom and aligned itself with the Habsburgs. Naples dominated Southern Italy for the next four centuries. Northern Italy remained a political mess with the Habsburgs and Valois constantly fighting for control of it. The wars also cemented the power of the Medici Family in Florence, who actively bankrolled the Habsburg war effort on three separate occasions.

Map 1.1: Italy on the eve of the Italian Wars, 1510.
​

Also, the wars were important in military evolution. The Italian Wars climaxed during the Renaissance, and ended the fighting style and traditions of the Middle Ages. Gunpowder, muskets, and cannons were all deployed, alongside pole-arms, pikes, and the remnants of the old order - the Knight. Men from Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Hungary, and the Balkans fought against one another and for one another. This was the great age of the mercenary armies of Europe: Free companies, the legendary Swiss Mercenaries, and the Italian Condottieri in the services of their masters were a common sight on the battlefields, where as much as half of the soldiers deployed in several of the larger battles, which featured as many as 100,000 men square off against one another, were mercenaries. While knights and other heavy horsemen were still important and widely used during the wars, the war eclipsed the power and prestige of the knights who were becoming less effective in their medieval form and had to evolve in order to survive – although it would be wrong to say that cavalry had lost their effectiveness on the battlefield, their use changed from being the winners of the medieval battlefield to a mobile reserve that would destroy the enemy towards the end of the engagement, when many casualties were taken during military withdrawal and retreat.

The wars also gave rise to the Habsburg Monarchy, as I mentioned in my preface. It was during the crisis of the Second Italian War that Matthew incorporated the Kingdom of Hungary, which he ruled but the Hungarian nobles had de facto control over, as a necessary part of the Habsburg Crown, creating the permanent and unified Habsburg Monarchy at the heart of the continent. The war not only gave rise to a united Habsburg Monarchy along the Danube, but also cemented France as the most powerful kingdom in Europe, and paved the way for the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon to become united as the Kingdom of Spain.

The First Italian War, fought 1503-1505, in which the Habsburgs gained Ferrera, is of little importance to cover compared to the larger and titanic struggles between Reformed France and the Catholic Habsburg Monarchy for hegemony and power over Italy. In principle, the Wars of 1511-1515 are seen as the time in which the near disastrous performance of the Imperial troops forced the integration of Hungary as part of the Habsburg crownlands – thereby officially uniting the Habsburg Crown as a single political entity, rather than two separate entities that happened to be ruled over by the same individual. Thus, it is 1511 that most historians date the beginning of the Habsburg Monarchy as a unified entity akin to the Kingdom of France, or England, etc.[1]

An image of the French intervention in the Second Italian War, which caused a crisis in Habsburg history. This particular image depicts the crushing French victory over Emperor Matthew at the Battle of Lake Constance, 1511. Over 6,000 Imperial soldiers were lost to just under 2,000 French.​

The Italian Wars not only marked the beginning of the Habsburg-Valois Rivalry, it also gave birth to modern warfare – in a sense, as it marked the first series of wars that saw extensive (although still in the minority) use of firearms and rapid troop movements in mobile campaigns of total war. It also would have lasting impacts upon the political map of Europe. No war before it had been as crushing and devastating, hundreds of thousands of soldiers were killed or wounded during the fighting, and hundreds of thousands of civilians would die of starvation due to the increased diversion of national resources to the war, and the displacement of tens of thousands of more civilians, who would flock from the countryside to the safety of cities and other urban centers. Thus, the rise of cities also begins with the Italian Wars, and can be seen as the moment of emergence of the nation-state – as I mentioned, the Habsburg lands were integrated as one during the war. Modern banking can also be traced to the war, the Medici Bank became so important during the conflict – funding the Habsburg war effort.[2]

>>> Continue​

[1]In actual history, most historians cite the date 1526 as the year of the Habsburg Monarchy’s unified status as a single political entity – after the Hungarian defeat at the Battle of Mohács where the Hungarian and Bohemian King, Louis II, who was an adopted son of the Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand I, used the crisis to proclaim himself King of Hungary and Bohemia, thus creating the borders of the “Austrian” Empire, which did not come into existence until 1804 as a reaction to Napoleon’s coronation as Emperor of the French. There is debate among historians whether to refer to the Habsburg dominion from 1526-1804 as the Austrian Empire, or the Habsburg Monarchy, since it technically did not have a formal name: like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Both stylizations are generally accepted, but with the knowledge that the Austrian Empire proper existed from 1804-1867, then became known as the Austro-Hungarian Empire from 1867-1918/1919. Due to the unofficial name status, common popular names, like the Danubian Monarchy, were also used.

[2]The Medici Bank was historically dissolved 1494. But since this is alternative history, and to reflect my taking of massive bank loans, (at 150 ducats in-game per loan), I’ve decided to incorporate this aspect of my playing as such.

 

[GreatUberGeek]

Instead of the Turkish menace, the Austrians will now form an empire in fear of the French? Well-played, volksmarschall, well-played.

 

[Idhrendur]

Bits and pieces of the modern world begin to take shape.

Also, the scale of those wars sounds terrible.

 

[Scott1964]

Need a secret weapon :ninja: