The Peasants revolted because they felt like they were being mistreated by their superiors. They wanted more rights without being punished while trying to receive them as individuals. I guess they thought if they all revolted, then things would change for the better for them. Were they justified? I don't know. Luther wrote about the Peasants' Revolt; he called them criminals and un-Godly. He said that they were trying to achieve something in the wrong way while saying it was in God's name.
When she says that Luther said that they were doing it the wrong way and justifying themselves by saying they were doing it in Gods name, I agree with what he is saying. I think that the peasants had every reason to try and get equality for themselves but I think that they should have gone about it a different way.
The peasants reason for revolt was that they were not being treated in the way that they wanted and wanted better social status. I believe that they were justified in wanting to better their conditions through revolt. Luther believed in a religious change not a social change so he believed that the peasants were using gods name in the wrong way to try to change their social power.
I agree with Dylan that they were using God's name as an excuse for their reasons for social reform, but this also was going on in a time where people were reforming lots of things they felt wrong. Zwingli felt like Luther didnt do enough so he tried to add his points and then people followed and reformed Zwingli's views. The stage was set for people to use God as a reason for reform.
I agree with Dylan when he stated the Luther believed that the peasants were using God's name in the wrong way. They were using His name as an excuse for revolting in hopes of being successful.
The German peasants revolted in more of a economic and political reason than of a religious reason. In the twelve articles of the peasants, the first article shares the desire of peasants to have power and authority so that they can choose a pastor and be able to depose of him. In the third article they say that they should be free. They were right or justified in that they should have more rights and freedom as a person, but they were wrong in bringing religion into their revolt. Luther responded to the revolt by saying that he shunned the revolt. And that the peasants burdened themselves with three terrible sins against god and man. One, they broke obedience of the higher power. Two, they started rebellion and plundered churches. Three, they cloaked the terrible sin of the gospel.
I agree with Caleb that the peasants revolted for economic and political reasons more than religious reasons. The peasants wanted to have some part in the government as well as have more economic opportunities and acted violently as a result. The peasants justified their actions with religious reasons by relating what they did to the Gospel when a majority of their reasons for revolting were barely relevant to religion.
The peasants revolt for social,political, and economical reasons, because the want more power, more affect on the HRE, equal opportunities,and a chance to have a better economic standing in society. Why the peasants revolted is described in 12 different articles. The peasants complain in the 12 articles that they want a to have an impact politically in society, want more economic chances, more rights, less oppression from lords, and an end to serfdom. I believe the peasants made several good points. I agreed with almost all of their points except for their argument made in the second article on how excess tithes should be donated to the poor. Despite this, the peasants made good points, but went about their revolt in the wrong way. The peasants should not have acted so violently and should not have justified their actions based on the teachings of the Gospel. Therefore, I believe the peasants were not justified. Luther responds by completely speaking against the peasant's actions. Luther claims the peasants have sinned, started an unnecessary rebellion, and were wrong to relate their sins to the Gospel.
I agree with Dilys on two main points she makes. The first is her disagreement with the peasants' idea to donate all excess tithes to the poor. However, I understand why they have this requirement; they themselves are the poorest of the poor in Germany. I also agree with her saying that the peasants should not have been so violent. While violence in situations like this may sometimes be appropriate, they also could have attempted to achieve social justice in a more peaceful manner such as MLK Jr. in the civil rights movement.
I agree with two main points made by Dilys. The first is her disagreement with their idea that all excess tithes should be given to the poor. However, I understand their reasoning for this requirement; they themselves are the poorest of the poor in Germany. I also agree with her saying the peasants' were to extreme in violence. Although violence is sometimes appropriate in situations like this, the peasants could have attempted a more peaceful method of obtaining social justice similar to MLK Jr. during the civil rights movement.
I think that Jacob's comparison of the peasants revolt offers an interesting perspective on the topic and on human nature in general. It demonstrates that even hundreds of years later in a different country and society, oppressed people still fought ( and are fighting) for equality. While MLK Jr. advocated a more respectable nonviolent approach during the civil rights movement, other groups like the Black Panthers were using more violent methods more comparable to those of the German peasants. Also, I thought it was an interesting coincidence (or not) that Jacob mentioned Martin Luther King Jr. In a post related to Martin Luther.
I also agree with Dilys. I believe the peasants were justified, but violence was probably not the smartest way of getting what they wanted. I, like Dilys, agreed with most all of their points excluding the one about the distribution of wealth.
The peasants' obvious reason for revolt was their desire for at least greater rights and privileges if not social equality with the upper class. They felt the best way to accomplish this was by leading a physical revolt in order to forcefully take this equality. I think this is fairly justified; I understand that they wanted better conditions after being mistreated their entire lives, but I'm not sure what the best method of obtaining these conditions was. It might have been a revolt, it might have been another method. As for Luther, he supported religious rather than social changes. He also was protected by the nobles, whom the peasants were revolting against, thus he did not support this peasant revolt.
I agree with Jacob becauseI also believe the revolt was justified. The peasants had been mistreated for so many years and wanted more rights and privileges, but leading a violent revolt was probably not the best method.
The peasants revolted because they had been mistreated for many years. The peasants wanted more privileges like to end serfdom and be able to hunt on the nobles' land. They also wanted lower taxes. The peasants revolt was justified because they deserved a better condition of living and they deserved more rights. The peasants deserved equality and to not be looked down upon by the rest of society. Luther was against the revolt because he focused on reforming religion, not the social ladder. Also, Luther needed the support of the nobles to keep his movement going.
I agree with all but one of George's points that being the fact that Luther may have supported the revolt if the people who were protecting him from being killed by the Catholics were the nobles who the peasants were revolting against.
The peasants revolted because of the social, political, and economical injustices that they were facing. They wanted more power and more rights, for example they wanted to be able to hunt and fish. They also wanted the prices if the basic things that they needed to be be brought down. Another thing, is that they wanted the taxes to be taken away because they were the only ones having to pay them. I think that the peasants revolt was justifiable because gbeh deserves to have equal rights along with everyone else. I think that the people should have been more open to the peasants wanting equality because of all of the new religious views that are being brought into perspective and the way that culture is changing!
I agree with what Reagan is saying that the peasants deserved equal rights. They were getting taxed unfairly and having to pay unfair prices. So they needed more power to fight the injustices.
The German peasants revolted because they were tired of the oppression that they were being subjected to. They were socially discriminated against due to their low ranks. Also, they faced economic injustices such as working for almost nothing and being charged unfair prices for goods. The peasants were tired of their low wages and believed that they were enduring political inequality. They also were tired of the new and unjust laws that were being passed and of the unseemly tithes. I believe the peasants were justified in their revolt. It is unfair to treat someone differently simply because they are of a lower class and were not born into wealth. Luther did not support the peasant revolts because he was only interested in religious reform within the Church. He believed that the unruly peasants were simply tossing around God's name to cover up the fact that they really were just upset with their social situations.
Throughout their 12 articles, the peasants implied that their primary reasons for revolting were based on the religious reformation's idea of the religious authority of the bible over that of the church. While this may have been somewhat true, the peasants were actually using the religious revolution as an opportunity to attempt to gain more political and economic rights, as well as higher social standings. I think the peasants' reasonings for the revolt are justifiable, but not the revolt itself. I have no way of knowing whether a less-violent approach would have had as much of an impact, but I do believe that a nonviolent method should have been their first, and hopefully only, strategy. Luther was against the peasants' revolt partly because they falsely named religion as the basis of their revolt, but also because they were against all nobles and Luther was receiving support for his ideas from Protestant rulers.
I agree with Caroline's point about Luther gaining more support for his Church reform ideas from Protestant rulers. Also, I do not know if a non-violent approach would have accomplished anything, because I think that a peaceful protest would probably just have been ignored by people of higher ranks.
Obviously the peasants revolted due to the poor conditions and the way they were treated. I agree that in any case, you have the right to want better for yourself but revolting isnt always the best way. I think that because Luther's reformation was coming along at the same time along with others, the scene was set for people who found something wrong with something to want reform to. While Luther disagrees with the Peasants, he cant blame them for wanting better. Some of the things they were having to ask for were crazy like the right to get wood out of the woods and whether or not it belonged to the nobles.
The Peasants tried to justify their twelve articles based on religion. Every complaint, or maybe demand they had was reasoned by Biblical teachings and the will of God. I think the conditions they were forced to live in were harsh and unreasonable, and everyone deserves the chance to better themselves. Revolt obviously was not the bet answer because they were fighting against the nobles who had all of the money, power, and weapons. Maybe they could have reasoned with the nobles, not trying to us religion to back up their plea for a better social standing. Luther did not think the peasants were right, and shunned their revolt. Luther may have tried to rally with them if he wasn't protected by the nobles, and their social revolt was not masked as a religious one.
The peasants revolted because they were tired of getting the short end of the stick. They wanted to be able to fish and hunt and pay fair prices for lumber. They wanted to be treated more fair and have better living conditions. They also wanted more power and say . I think they were justified because they were sick of getting stomped down and stood up for themselves. Luther doesn't like the revolt at all he thinks they should be submissive to their rulers. He doesn't support a rebellion of violence and robbing. On the other hand though he has to say this because if he doesn't the nobles supporting him will turn against him.
I agree with Sara Catherine that revolting wasn't the best way of going about change, but on the other hand reasoning with the nobles might not have helped their cause either. I also agree that the peasants tried to explain that their twelve articles were based on religion, but in reality the peasants copied Luther, who was attacking the Church, and tried to do the same thing by attacking the nobles that ruled them.
The peasants revolted because they didn't feel as though their twelve articles were being respected. They used religion as the cause of their revolt such as saying that it was against Christ for a man to own another man, and so on. They also felt constant demands from their masters over various tasks. they revolted because they felt they were mistreated and because they felt their articles weren't being followed or adhered to. Luther saw sympathy for the poor because some of them saw that in his teachings was a resistance against the powerful, but Luther rejects the notion that his religious ideas could come into the conflicts between a lord and his peasant.
The Peasants revolted because they felt like they were being mistreated by their superiors. They wanted more rights without being punished while trying to receive them as individuals. I guess they thought if they all revolted, then things would change for the better for them. Were they justified? I don't know. Luther wrote about the Peasants' Revolt; he called them criminals and un-Godly. He said that they were trying to achieve something in the wrong way while saying it was in God's name.
ReplyDeleteWhen she says that Luther said that they were doing it the wrong way and justifying themselves by saying they were doing it in Gods name, I agree with what he is saying. I think that the peasants had every reason to try and get equality for themselves but I think that they should have gone about it a different way.
DeleteThe peasants reason for revolt was that they were not being treated in the way that they wanted and wanted better social status. I believe that they were justified in wanting to better their conditions through revolt. Luther believed in a religious change not a social change so he believed that the peasants were using gods name in the wrong way to try to change their social power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dylan that they were using God's name as an excuse for their reasons for social reform, but this also was going on in a time where people were reforming lots of things they felt wrong. Zwingli felt like Luther didnt do enough so he tried to add his points and then people followed and reformed Zwingli's views. The stage was set for people to use God as a reason for reform.
DeleteI agree with Dylan when he stated the Luther believed that the peasants were using God's name in the wrong way. They were using His name as an excuse for revolting in hopes of being successful.
ReplyDeleteThe German peasants revolted in more of a economic and political reason than of a religious reason. In the twelve articles of the peasants, the first article shares the desire of peasants to have power and authority so that they can choose a pastor and be able to depose of him. In the third article they say that they should be free. They were right or justified in that they should have more rights and freedom as a person, but they were wrong in bringing religion into their revolt. Luther responded to the revolt by saying that he shunned the revolt. And that the peasants burdened themselves with three terrible sins against god and man. One, they broke obedience of the higher power. Two, they started rebellion and plundered churches. Three, they cloaked the terrible sin of the gospel.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caleb that the peasants revolted for economic and political reasons more than religious reasons. The peasants wanted to have some part in the government as well as have more economic opportunities and acted violently as a result. The peasants justified their actions with religious reasons by relating what they did to the Gospel when a majority of their reasons for revolting were barely relevant to religion.
DeleteThe peasants revolt for social,political, and economical reasons, because the want more power, more affect on the HRE, equal opportunities,and a chance to have a better economic standing in society. Why the peasants revolted is described in 12 different articles. The peasants complain in the 12 articles that they want a to have an impact politically in society, want more economic chances, more rights, less oppression from lords, and an end to serfdom. I believe the peasants made several good points. I agreed with almost all of their points except for their argument made in the second article on how excess tithes should be donated to the poor. Despite this, the peasants made good points, but went about their revolt in the wrong way. The peasants should not have acted so violently and should not have justified their actions based on the teachings of the Gospel. Therefore, I believe the peasants were not justified. Luther responds by completely speaking against the peasant's actions. Luther claims the peasants have sinned, started an unnecessary rebellion, and were wrong to relate their sins to the Gospel.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dilys on two main points she makes. The first is her disagreement with the peasants' idea to donate all excess tithes to the poor. However, I understand why they have this requirement; they themselves are the poorest of the poor in Germany. I also agree with her saying that the peasants should not have been so violent. While violence in situations like this may sometimes be appropriate, they also could have attempted to achieve social justice in a more peaceful manner such as MLK Jr. in the civil rights movement.
DeleteI agree with two main points made by Dilys. The first is her disagreement with their idea that all excess tithes should be given to the poor. However, I understand their reasoning for this requirement; they themselves are the poorest of the poor in Germany. I also agree with her saying the peasants' were to extreme in violence. Although violence is sometimes appropriate in situations like this, the peasants could have attempted a more peaceful method of obtaining social justice similar to MLK Jr. during the civil rights movement.
DeleteDon't ask why I posted two different comments. The first said it didn't publish but apparently it did.
DeleteI think that Jacob's comparison of the peasants revolt offers an interesting perspective on the topic and on human nature in general. It demonstrates that even hundreds of years later in a different country and society, oppressed people still fought ( and are fighting) for equality. While MLK Jr. advocated a more respectable nonviolent approach during the civil rights movement, other groups like the Black Panthers were using more violent methods more comparable to those of the German peasants. Also, I thought it was an interesting coincidence (or not) that Jacob mentioned Martin Luther King Jr. In a post related to Martin Luther.
DeleteI also agree with Dilys. I believe the peasants were justified, but violence was probably not the smartest way of getting what they wanted. I, like Dilys, agreed with most all of their points excluding the one about the distribution of wealth.
DeleteThe peasants' obvious reason for revolt was their desire for at least greater rights and privileges if not social equality with the upper class. They felt the best way to accomplish this was by leading a physical revolt in order to forcefully take this equality. I think this is fairly justified; I understand that they wanted better conditions after being mistreated their entire lives, but I'm not sure what the best method of obtaining these conditions was. It might have been a revolt, it might have been another method. As for Luther, he supported religious rather than social changes. He also was protected by the nobles, whom the peasants were revolting against, thus he did not support this peasant revolt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jacob becauseI also believe the revolt was justified. The peasants had been mistreated for so many years and wanted more rights and privileges, but leading a violent revolt was probably not the best method.
DeleteThe peasants revolted because they had been mistreated for many years. The peasants wanted more privileges like to end serfdom and be able to hunt on the nobles' land. They also wanted lower taxes. The peasants revolt was justified because they deserved a better condition of living and they deserved more rights. The peasants deserved equality and to not be looked down upon by the rest of society. Luther was against the revolt because he focused on reforming religion, not the social ladder. Also, Luther needed the support of the nobles to keep his movement going.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all but one of George's points that being the fact that Luther may have supported the revolt if the people who were protecting him from being killed by the Catholics were the nobles who the peasants were revolting against.
DeleteThe peasants revolted because of the social, political, and economical injustices that they were facing. They wanted more power and more rights, for example they wanted to be able to hunt and fish. They also wanted the prices if the basic things that they needed to be be brought down. Another thing, is that they wanted the taxes to be taken away because they were the only ones having to pay them. I think that the peasants revolt was justifiable because gbeh deserves to have equal rights along with everyone else. I think that the people should have been more open to the peasants wanting equality because of all of the new religious views that are being brought into perspective and the way that culture is changing!
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Reagan is saying that the peasants deserved equal rights. They were getting taxed unfairly and having to pay unfair prices. So they needed more power to fight the injustices.
DeleteThe German peasants revolted because they were tired of the oppression that they were being subjected to. They were socially discriminated against due to their low ranks. Also, they faced economic injustices such as working for almost nothing and being charged unfair prices for goods. The peasants were tired of their low wages and believed that they were enduring political inequality. They also were tired of the new and unjust laws that were being passed and of the unseemly tithes. I believe the peasants were justified in their revolt. It is unfair to treat someone differently simply because they are of a lower class and were not born into wealth. Luther did not support the peasant revolts because he was only interested in religious reform within the Church. He believed that the unruly peasants were simply tossing around God's name to cover up the fact that they really were just upset with their social situations.
ReplyDeleteThroughout their 12 articles, the peasants implied that their primary reasons for revolting were based on the religious reformation's idea of the religious authority of the bible over that of the church. While this may have been somewhat true, the peasants were actually using the religious revolution as an opportunity to attempt to gain more political and economic rights, as well as higher social standings. I think the peasants' reasonings for the revolt are justifiable, but not the revolt itself. I have no way of knowing whether a less-violent approach would have had as much of an impact, but I do believe that a nonviolent method should have been their first, and hopefully only, strategy. Luther was against the peasants' revolt partly because they falsely named religion as the basis of their revolt, but also because they were against all nobles and Luther was receiving support for his ideas from Protestant rulers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caroline's point about Luther gaining more support for his Church reform ideas from Protestant rulers. Also, I do not know if a non-violent approach would have accomplished anything, because I think that a peaceful protest would probably just have been ignored by people of higher ranks.
DeleteObviously the peasants revolted due to the poor conditions and the way they were treated. I agree that in any case, you have the right to want better for yourself but revolting isnt always the best way. I think that because Luther's reformation was coming along at the same time along with others, the scene was set for people who found something wrong with something to want reform to. While Luther disagrees with the Peasants, he cant blame them for wanting better. Some of the things they were having to ask for were crazy like the right to get wood out of the woods and whether or not it belonged to the nobles.
ReplyDeleteThe Peasants tried to justify their twelve articles based on religion. Every complaint, or maybe demand they had was reasoned by Biblical teachings and the will of God. I think the conditions they were forced to live in were harsh and unreasonable, and everyone deserves the chance to better themselves. Revolt obviously was not the bet answer because they were fighting against the nobles who had all of the money, power, and weapons. Maybe they could have reasoned with the nobles, not trying to us religion to back up their plea for a better social standing. Luther did not think the peasants were right, and shunned their revolt. Luther may have tried to rally with them if he wasn't protected by the nobles, and their social revolt was not masked as a religious one.
ReplyDeleteThe peasants revolted because they were tired of getting the short end of the stick. They wanted to be able to fish and hunt and pay fair prices for lumber. They wanted to be treated more fair and have better living conditions. They also wanted more power and say . I think they were justified because they were sick of getting stomped down and stood up for themselves. Luther doesn't like the revolt at all he thinks they should be submissive to their rulers. He doesn't support a rebellion of violence and robbing. On the other hand though he has to say this because if he doesn't the nobles supporting him will turn against him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara Catherine that revolting wasn't the best way of going about change, but on the other hand reasoning with the nobles might not have helped their cause either. I also agree that the peasants tried to explain that their twelve articles were based on religion, but in reality the peasants copied Luther, who was attacking the Church, and tried to do the same thing by attacking the nobles that ruled them.
ReplyDeleteThe peasants revolted because they didn't feel as though their twelve articles were being respected. They used religion as the cause of their revolt such as saying that it was against Christ for a man to own another man, and so on. They also felt constant demands from their masters over various tasks. they revolted because they felt they were mistreated and because they felt their articles weren't being followed or adhered to. Luther saw sympathy for the poor because some of them saw that in his teachings was a resistance against the powerful, but Luther rejects the notion that his religious ideas could come into the conflicts between a lord and his peasant.
ReplyDelete