Talk:Peasant Protests

message: This article is terrible!!! I know it's not very helpful, but I suggest to delete entire paragraphs and chapters or to begin completely anew. At least, unless you find a historian who has enough patience to correct the errors and limits its content.
For example, Frederick III of Saxony was not Elector of Wurttemberg, nor did he rule Wurttemberg. Wurttemberg was a duchy, and no electorate or kingdom, as claimed elsewhere (i.e. until Napoléon). Between 1498 and 1550 Wurttemberg was ruled (intermittently) by a Duke Ulrich of Wurttemberg. Frederick's collecting of relics is as important a fact as the hobbies of the Emperor of China, and that Ralph Fiennes acted in a movie belongs into a Trivia section or omitted.  92.230.59.204 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, 92, I have tried to get the title changed, without success (I did it, and someone reversed it).  I was appalled at the factual errors of this.  Your point about Duke Ulrich is only one of the errors of this.  I'm working on a new article (see German Peasants' War) which I hope will satisfy the requirements.  Please bear in mind it is a work in progress.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rubbish

message: This article needs to be reorganized into a more standard format.  At present it is mostly a list of groups and their possible motivations and interests with regard to the war.  The actual chronology of events however is quite unclear.  Much more information about battles, key events, and casualties is needed. 74.136.219.119 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification Needed 

message: What was the nature of the "War"? Was it violent??
:violence is an essence of WAR  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.192.35 (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  War? 

message: This appears to be a very learned article, with lots of sociological background and analysis, but what actually happened?  Can someone add a narrative account of the Peasants' War? It's no good a non-expert like me reading all this detailed analysis if I only have a vague idea from general knowledge about what happened. Or perhaps this article should be more accurately entitled, "Analysis of the Peasants' War."
--Iacobus 03:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was basically an essay in Marxist theory. I have taken out some of the POV, but that leaves the article even shorter, and still lacking in factual substance. Postlebury (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What actually happened? 

message: I find it odd that this piece is about a Peasant uprising but they are the last listed group in the list. What's the reasoning behind the order? Thanks for the article. Hu Gadarn 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priority 

message: I utterly agree with Iacobus above. This is fine as a sociological analysis, but few historians would now write about the Peasant's War in this form. Could we insert a large chunk of narrative in first in this document (since that's probably the most important stuff to put in, and a great deal of the sociological stuff already in the article would now be disputed by many Reformation historians).
For narrative, I would suggest broadly following the introcution to Scribner & Scott, The German Peasant's War, (1990). This divides up the war into the five separate geographical entities it was:
1. Southwestern Germany (Black Forest, Upper Swabia)
2. Franconia
3. Thuringia and Saxony
4. Rhine-Main region
5. Tirol.
Would this be acceptable to put on the page?
User: Sam, 5 June 2006
:That looks like a good plan. Please go ahead if you have the time, it looks like you have the sources to hand. --Iacobus 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrative 

message: Quite a bit of the wording comes out as praising the poor and vilifying the upper classes and clergy.  Without specific sources, I couldn't justify the current wording. I got rid of some of the most blatant issues, but hopefully someone else can make further improvements. Sxeptomaniac 19:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood my meaning.  I was not saying that we needed to be sympathetic to the nobles.  The nobles are going to look bad no matter how we present the information (because they were doing awful things), but we don't want the article to feel like we're cheering on the peasants and booing the nobles.  We want to simply present the facts, not make value judgements regarding who the good and bad guys were. Sxeptomaniac 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was a Marxist essay. I have taken out the worst of the bias, but the lack of factual substance remains unresolved. Postlebury (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issues 

message: I recommend that editors examine the Marienberg Fortress article for an account of the critical battle that lost the war for the peasants. Note that I've already described how the tortures and killings by the peasants of nobles and knights in Weinsberg was the psychological turning point that made it so the nobles and knights would not compromise or make peace with the peasant movement.EnglishGarden 22:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Peasant Siege of the Marienberg Fortress Above Wuerzburg in May 1525 

message: Would it be a good idea to add a link to the opera by Paul Hindemith called Mathis der Maler? It is set during the War and centers on the painter Matthias Grünewald. Wspencer11 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional link? 

message: First, Stephensj74 has got it right in his comment at the top (and he used good sources; I am familiar with Blickle's work, which is kind of a standard for the Bauernkrieg). Second, see the terminology note at Popular_revolt_in_late_medieval_Europe. But most of all I'm astonished about the map; it needs a couple of corrections:
* Strassbourg isn't in modern Germany
* it's "Odenwald", not "Odernwald"
* "Prag" should be spelled "Praha".
* But my major factual gripe about this map concerns Switzerland. It's given as "Insurgences since 1291", which is a bit nonsensical. By 1524, the Old Swiss Confederacy was firmly established, and emperor Maximilian I had in 1511 officially given up all former territorial claims of the Habsburgs in that area in a treaty with the Swiss Confederacy called the Erbeinung. The Swiss Confederacy was at that time an Imperial estate exempt from the Imperial Chamber Court, although that status within the empire was never formalized. Furthermore, much of the northern and western part of the Swiss Confederacy is shown as having seen uprisings during the German peasant war. This completely neglects that these "insurgences" in the Swiss Confederacy had a completely different quality as they did not (as in Germany) result in widespread armed uprisings. In the Swiss Confederacy, these insurgences remained isolated events and in general did not escalate to armed conflicts. 
* The boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire shown seem to imply that the Duchy of Milan was part of the empire. But France surrendered its claims in northern Italy only in 1526; see Italian Wars, in particular Italian War of 1521. Also compare this map.
* Finally, what was used as the background image for this map? It looks like some satellite image. Where did it come from? Is it in the public domain? 
Lupo 22:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Primary sources
:* Martin Luther (1525). Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants
:* Friedrich Engels (1850). The Peasant War in Germany
:* Tom Scott and Bob Scribner (1991). The German Peasants' War: A History in Documents
Friedrich Engels is a primary source for the german peasant's war? Thats an interesting viewpoint. I'm changing this. --168.105.209.33 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, clearly that is in error.  It should be moved to secondary sources. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary What?!?

message: I know a lot of people seem to be defending this article for whatever reason, but it desperately needs a rewrite. It seems to be written from an extremely socialist viewpoint. Not that it is overtly biased, but the article has about ten sections on classes and class conflict, and about two or three scattered paragraphs on the actually events of the war. As if they were some sort of footnote. Inarguably you can't study the Bauernkrieg without understanding the class issues that underpinned it, but this article focuses so exclusively on them that it ends up being to the detriment of the end product. Its unencyclopedic and something needs to be done about it. Thoughts? --168.105.125.248 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a rewrite tag. If nothing happens in a while, I might come back and cut the whole thing down to a couple of paragraphs to deal with the imbalance issues. Better to have a hundred word stub (which is what I could do, I'm not an expert), than a thousand word biased essay. Postlebury (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: I saw the redlink to Roman Civil law in the article and was tempted to change it to link to Corpus Juris Civilis but I thought I'd better check - and I can't find a reference supporting this. Certainly Engels doesn't mention Justinian law in any way in his book (he does mention it, as 'the Pandects', in other works, but not in relation to this conflict as far as I can tell). To the contrary, the mentions of 'Roman' and 'jurisprudence' that I found were all about the application of church dogma in the courts - not the same thing. I'm tagging this as lacking sources. Bazzargh (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Civil law

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: When you do something like that, it would be good to find out what the discussion or motivation has been prior to moving something back.  This is a poor article about the peasant war, although a much better article about Marxist interpretation of the Peasant war.  An article about the Peasant War should have some specific things in it, like Battles, Orders of Battle, commanders, soldiers, casualties, etc.  This has none of that.  It is, however, quite an interesting article on the interpretation of the causes of the war.  So I'd appreciate it if you would retitle the article to something you think is more appropriate to something other than the Peasant war, so that the military historians can actually write the appropriate article... Thanks.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe causes of the peasant war?Teeninvestor (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Causes of the Peasant War works sort of, except that this only focuses on Marx and Engels' interpretation of the Causes of the Peasant's War. There are other interpretations of the causes and this is by no means an unbiased presentation of the Causes.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It may be a bad title, but it was at least descriptive of the article, which the current title is not. 

message: Look at the clergy paragraph . I think John MacArthur wrote this bigoted trash. No citations on things. Peppermintschnapps (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is unacceptable, possibly the worst cited page i have seen 

message: A Bauer is a commoner of his own lands. A peasant is someone that doesn't own land, just works it. --41.151.79.199 (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, a Bauer didn't necessarily own the fields he was working on. See :de:Bauernstand. --Rosenzweig (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bauer =/= peasant