Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    peasent uprising [Sweden]

    To quote briefly from Geoffrey Barraclough:
    "Uprisings against the state were a fact of life throughout the 16th and
    17th centuries. Some revolts rose from attacks on the priveleges of the
    various estates [any group with special legal rights]; others were caused by
    economic hardship -- from taxes imposed when prices were high and
    unemployment widespread, as was the case in most French popular revolts, or
    from the enclosing of common land, which caused the revolts of 1549 and 1607
    in England. In all cases the revolts were a responce to attempts at
    innovation."

    I would hope that mere mention of the Great Peasant Revolt in England in
    1381 and the Jacquerie in France in 1357 will remind readers that peasant
    unrest is as much a medieval phenomena as it is early modern. I have seen a
    fugure of 500 uprisings in France between 1500 and 1650. If anyone has a
    source for late medieval France, I would be very interested.

    BTW, Trizt, let us not forget that Sigusmund was Catholic in Lutheran
    Sweden, saw himself as reconquering Sweden for Catholicism, was married to a
    Habsburg, and was close to tha Papacy. As king of Poland he clashed with
    his father (Sweden) over Lithuania, and once succeding in Sweden he became
    involved in a major constitutional crisis over his abuse of powers. It was
    not Charles (Karl) who stole Sweden from Sigusmund, but the Swedish people
    who deposed Sigusmund and placed a Lutheran Vasa on the throne.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Trizt
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 1:49 PM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - peasent uprising [was --I recant (sort of)]


    >
    >
    >I would disagree with you Kenneth, the medieval "folk uprise" is quite
    >uncommon, it was more commmon with a lord making rebellion against a
    >leade which he disliked. It may sometimes seem that it was an "folk
    >uprise" but if you examine those happening you will find a noble who
    >undermined another lord and pumped in money to people who too disliked
    >the noble in power, a good example of this is how councler Karl managed
    >to steal part of the crown from King Sigismund of Finalnd, Poland and
    >Sweden. Karl paid anormous amounts of money to make a "folk uprise"
    >against Vice Ruler Flemming.
    >
    > //Trizt
    >************************************************* **************************
    >>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >

  2. #2
    Trizt
    Guest

    peasent uprising [Sweden]

    Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > BTW, Trizt, let us not forget that Sigusmund was Catholic in Lutheran
    > Sweden, saw himself as reconquering Sweden for Catholicism, was married to a
    > Habsburg, and was close to tha Papacy. As king of Poland he clashed with
    > his father (Sweden) over Lithuania, and once succeding in Sweden he became
    > involved in a major constitutional crisis over his abuse of powers. It was
    > not Charles (Karl) who stole Sweden from Sigusmund, but the Swedish people
    > who deposed Sigusmund and placed a Lutheran Vasa on the throne.

    Even if the population was classed as catholic in Sweden-Finland, many
    of them did favor the catholic form of worshiping. The reformation
    wasn't a total success, there where major forces in the churs who wanted
    a form of "Catholic-Lutheran" version, but due Karl's luck to have the
    larger pile of gold he could buy more supporters and could buy a uprise
    in Finland which weekened the more catholic friendly forces (supporters
    of Sigusmund) so much that they where quite easy to defeat later during
    the short "civilwar". It's first after Karl managed to defeat Sigusmunds
    troops that the church could be called Lutheran.
    As I did say in my previous post, if you dig enough about the
    folk-upraise you will find the nobles behind this.

    //Trizt

  3. #3
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    peasent uprising [Sweden]

    Nobles are the natural leaders of the people. Most sustained and most
    successful anti-regent uprisings will be the result of the nobles comming to
    the head of their peasasnts in such moments. These even the French
    revolution was originally a popular uprising combined with a noble revolt.
    That does nothing, however, to diminish the real grievances of the peasants
    in any of these cases. There would be no peasants to lead without
    grievances. Fortunatly for BR campaigns, there are always grievances, as
    one DM recently mentioned regarding his campaign in Roesone.

    It makes for some interesting politics when the people revolt becuase of
    high taxation and the price of bread, and the nobles join them (note that
    peasants don't follow nobles, nobles do join peasant revolts though -- as
    leaders) over completely different set of grievances, such as the regent's
    hard line against El-Hadid which harms their incomes, and the installment of
    a High Steward who offends them.

    There are several ways to end this revolt.
    1) Quell the rebels and display the supremacy of the regent (should be
    hardest of the three).
    2) lower takes and win back the peasants (with no one to lead the nobles are
    silenced)
    3) Allow the High Steward to be tried for crimes, moderate your position on
    El-Hadid for a short time, and attempt to win the nobles back to the regent.

    Without nobles, peasant revolts tend to focus on the immediate problem
    without any understanding of the larger causes. Bakers are often attacked
    and forced to sell bread at a *fair* price. Of course the bakers paid the
    high costs to get the flour, so hurting them is not going to fix things.
    They would never just take the bread because then the baker is likely to
    just leave town. There is no bread that way. The nobles could unite the
    peasant's cause to their own by arguing that El-Hadid's trade helped keep
    the prices low, so it becomes harder for thge regent to seperate the
    peasants from the nobles. The nobles could also argue that the High Steward
    is behind all the high taxes, too. If the nobles could link there causes to
    the peasant's causes, it becomes very difficult to satisfy one and not the
    other.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

    P.S.: Regarding Sweden, Reformation was by and large a top down phenomena.
    Even during the time of Luther, most German princes became Lutheran for
    political reasons, as did Henry VIII in England (break with Rome). The
    theological issues are complicated enough very few understand them (many can
    express an incorrect, "close" approximation of the reasons). The fact that
    Swedish elites took an active roll to prevent Counter Reformation is hardly
    surprising. At the time of Sigusmund, Spain was contemplating aquiring
    Baltic possesions to counter the Dutch, who dominated Baltic trade. It was
    reasonable for Swedish elites to steer away from becoming a Spainish puppet,
    and preventing a Catholic return which would have resulted in strict
    Catholic discipline lead by Spanish and Italian Jesuits. When the Swedish
    people and elites saw Sigusmund's Habsburg wife, what they knew would follow
    was Spanish soldiers and Jesuits. This is not a pretty picture. The Dutch
    certainly didn't like it.

    KG

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Trizt
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Monday, January 18, 1999 10:20 AM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - peasent uprising [Sweden]


    >
    >
    >Kenneth Gauck wrote:
    >
    >> BTW, Trizt, let us not forget that Sigusmund was Catholic in Lutheran
    >> Sweden, saw himself as reconquering Sweden for Catholicism, was married
    to a
    >> Habsburg, and was close to tha Papacy. As king of Poland he clashed with
    >> his father (Sweden) over Lithuania, and once succeding in Sweden he
    became
    >> involved in a major constitutional crisis over his abuse of powers. It
    was
    >> not Charles (Karl) who stole Sweden from Sigusmund, but the Swedish
    people
    >> who deposed Sigusmund and placed a Lutheran Vasa on the throne.
    >
    >Even if the population was classed as catholic in Sweden-Finland, many
    >of them did favor the catholic form of worshiping. The reformation
    >wasn't a total success, there where major forces in the churs who wanted
    >a form of "Catholic-Lutheran" version, but due Karl's luck to have the
    >larger pile of gold he could buy more supporters and could buy a uprise
    >in Finland which weekened the more catholic friendly forces (supporters
    >of Sigusmund) so much that they where quite easy to defeat later during
    >the short "civilwar". It's first after Karl managed to defeat Sigusmunds
    >troops that the church could be called Lutheran.
    >As I did say in my previous post, if you dig enough about the
    >folk-upraise you will find the nobles behind this.
    >
    > //Trizt
    >************************************************* **************************
    >>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >

  4. #4
    Trizt
    Guest

    peasent uprising [Sweden]

    Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > Nobles are the natural leaders of the people. Most sustained and most
    > successful anti-regent uprisings will be the result of the nobles comming to
    > the head of their peasasnts in such moments.

    I think we have to agree on that we have completly different views on
    what is a folk-uprise or not.

    > The fact that
    > Swedish elites took an active roll to prevent Counter Reformation is hardly
    > surprising. At the time of Sigusmund, Spain was contemplating aquiring
    > Baltic possesions to counter the Dutch, who dominated Baltic trade. It was
    > reasonable for Swedish elites to steer away from becoming a Spainish puppet,
    > and preventing a Catholic return which would have resulted in strict
    > Catholic discipline lead by Spanish and Italian Jesuits.

    To say that the people would have been behind this "new" religion (as
    you inderectly said in your prevous post) can't be much more from the
    trut, they did "love" the mystisism (spl?) in the catholic xianity. In
    compareson the lutheran mess (spl?) is quite boring comapared with the
    catholic and at the same time the the reformator did complain that the
    east-land was hardly christian.

    > people and elites saw Sigusmund's Habsburg wife, what they knew would follow
    > was Spanish soldiers and Jesuits. This is not a pretty picture. The Dutch
    > certainly didn't like it.
    What the western nobles didn't see was that larger armies would have
    made it much easier to defend the east-lands from Russian agression,
    this was one reason why Flemming supported Sigusmund.

    //Trizt

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. peasent uprising [was --I r
    By Kenneth Gauck in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-22-1999, 01:54 PM
  2. peasent uprising [was --I recan
    By Kenneth Gauck in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-17-1999, 10:37 PM
  3. peasent uprising
    By Kenneth Gauck in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-1999, 09:41 PM
  4. peasent uprising [was --I
    By Whalejudge@aol.co in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-1999, 03:50 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.