Successful Counterreformation and its effects upon affected states

[Traitorfish]

OK but Counterreformation is not 1871, but the 1500s and the 1600s.

Yes, but when you say that "Protestant Prussia [...] defeated all of its Catholic German rivals", you're talking about 1871, by which point Prussia cannot be considered unmbiguously "Protestant" simply because it has a Protestant state church. (Not to mention that the Prussian state church achieved the impressive feat of being, in itself, pretty ambiguous, which isn't something you'd usually associate with state churches.)

 

[Domen]

I wasn't talking only about 1871. The event "defeated Catholic rivals" did not happen during one year, 1871.

It was a very long process which beginned already in the 1600s, continued during the 1700s and the 1800s.

What about the Silesian Wars of the 1700s, during which Protestant Prussia defeated Catholic Habsburg Empire?

What about the Seven Years' War, during which Prussia fought against several other both German and non-German states?

The partitions of Poland in which Prussia participated alongside Russia and Austria were also during the late 1700s.

The Napoleonic Wars - Prussia was part of the victorious coalition again.

Already long before 1871 Prussia was the strongest of all German states. That was the case already in mid-1700s.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I've already expressed the view that I don't think "Prussia defeated its Catholic rivals" is a thing that ever actually happened, so I don't really have a response to that.

 

[Domen]

Either defeated or dominated or "strongly persuaded" to accept Prussia's leadership. The same result, slightly different methods.

It clearly defeated its main German rivals in actual wars - the Habsburg Empire (three Silesian Wars and war of 1866) and Saxony.

 

[Traitorfish]

Either defeated or dominated or pursuaded to accept Prussia's leadership. The same result, slightly different methods.

Well, no, that's what I'm rejecting. I think that Prussian conquest and confederation under Prussian leadership are very different outcomes, and that while it's true that many of the German states did not feel themselves to have much of a choice by 1871, Prussia could not simply dictate to them, and this is reflected in the shape of Imperial policy and institutions.

 

[sophie]

Well, then you have 2 different interpretations of 'historical facts'. I should take yours over a Harvard and MIT professors why?

Because Harvard and MIT history professors are notably terrible.

 

[Domen]

Traitorfish,

We may not agree on some details, but we both agree that Prussia became the strongest and the leading of German states.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, but that isn't explained by the fact it was formally Protestant, or that Austria was formally Catholic.

 

[Domen]

More than just formally. In fact at least statistically.

Like statistically Americans are richer than Nigerians, then to similar extent statistically Prussia was more Protestant than Austria.

Except maybe for period between 1795 and 1807, when Prussia had roughly equal number of Catholics and Protestants. But only in that period.

 

[Masada]

How would I measure how Catholic someone is?

 

[Domen]

How would I measure how Catholic someone is?

Check his or her baptismal certificate and his or her entry in baptismal register of his or her parish.

 

[Masada]

But that only measures whether or not someone is Catholic. It doesn't tell me how Catholic that person actually is.

Hint: GDP is on a scale. Catholicism is not.

 

[Traitorfish]

How would I measure how Catholic someone is?

Take them to a wedding and see how drunk they get.

More than just formally. In fact at least statistically.

Like statistically Americans are richer than Nigerians, then to similar extent statistically Prussia was more Protestant than Austria.

Except maybe for period between 1795 and 1807, when Prussia had roughly equal number of Catholics and Protestants. But only in that period.

Statistical majorities are only that, majorities. Prussia does not become simply and unambiguously Protestant because most Prussians are Protestant, any more than America is a "Christian country" because most Americans profess Christianity. We can talk about a "Protestant regime", perhaps, or a "Protestant elite", but neither of them suppose that Protestantism is a defining characteristic of the entire state-complex, let alone of Prussian society generally.

 

[Domen]

On first page of this thread Tolni asked the following question:

And how far did you get there? How rich is Poland now and then?

I made a graph which illustrates these changes and answers your question. I also added a timeline of - in my opinion - events which could have major impact on economy. Among those events I did not include Counterreformation, as this is controversial and we are just discussing its impact.

The graph is based on figures from 3 sources, one of them (by Marcin Piątkowski, 2013) is available online and in English:

Spoiler :

There is also Angus Maddison, but Maddison has one estimate for entire Eastern Europe, rather than for particular countries.

So I did not use his figures (even though his figures are also quoted by some of the 3 sources I used).

 

[Domen]

But that only measures whether or not someone is Catholic. It doesn't tell me how Catholic that person actually is.

Catholic is like 0 - 1 code. Either you are Catholic or not.

You can measure religiosity, but not "Catholicity" (if there even is such a word).

But there is a stereotype that most of Catholics have high religiosity (= are bigoted).

any more than America is a "Christian country" because most Americans profess Christianity.

What about Saudi Arabia. Is it a Muslim country or not ???

Before the late 1700s / 1800s there was no such thing like secular state.

So if Prussia was Protestant, it was Protestant.

Do not confuse this with modern secular states where one religion is most common.

 

[Flying Pig]

The problem is that this doesn't translate into anything meaningful - you can argue that people are either Catholic or not, but that then isn't useful to actually analyse a population. Clearly, there are differences between the Catholicism of someone like Dara O'Brien ('don't believe in God, don't go to Church, but still Catholic obviously') and his parish priest.

 

[Domen]

there are differences between the Catholicism of someone like Dara O'Brien ('don't believe in God, don't go to Church, but still Catholic obviously')

Polish nationalist politician Roman Dmowski was such a Catholic. He did not believe in God (so in fact he was an Atheist), but he argued that Catholicism is an inherent part of Polish culture so Poles must keep the tradition alive, must go to Church at least during major holidays like Christmas, etc.

However, Dmowski also argued that Catholics must "modernize" themselves and adopt some values of Protestants (mainly Protestant work ethic).

Interestingly, Dmowski considered the partitions of Poland as a "punishment" that Polish people deserved. But he of course wanted Poland to be reborn.

Dmowski despised Russia (while admiring Germany), but his policies were pro-Russian - merely because he considered Russia a less dangerous enemy than Germany. He knew that Poland couldn't have enemies everywhere, so he preferred to establish friendly relations with the less dangerous of its two enemies.

 

[Flying Pig]

Because treating Catholicism as a binary function means that you can't make a distinction between Dmowski's religion and that of Mary Tudor, so you'll either find yourself grasping for a reason why Mary was a relatively sane and secular ruler or trying to present Dmowski as a ruler guided fundamentally by his religion. What benefit do you gain from categorising him as 'Catholic' rather than 'technically Catholic' or 'nationalist via religion'? After all, I don't see that much important data changes if he becomes an Egyptian nationalist claiming the same about Islam - the religion itself is secondary. This is not the case with a truly religiously-guided leader.

 

[Domen]

Was Mary Tudor really a relatively sane and secular ruler ??? I've heard other things about her. Protestant propaganda?

=======================

BTW:

Regarding Dmowski - he admired some things about Prussia and Germany, but despised other things - especially ones concerning Prussia.

In Prussian "national character" he admired only several features (including famous "Prussian discipline"), but he despised other things:

Here is what he wrote in his 1902 book (predicting the demise of the German Empire and the fall of Prussia):

"Founded on harm of others, Prussia has poisoned the German spirit, demoralized it, killed the great thought and the high-minded sense of the German nation. (...) All of this will become the source of downfall of entire Germany."

And here is what he admired about Prussia:

"I have a great respect to their energy, discipline, their organisational skills, and first of all to their consistency in action, which is the main attribute of a truly mature manlike mind. (...) If I am not deluding myself, I even stopped hating them."

About Russia he wrote this:

"I have a disdain for the Muscovites due to their Asian destructive inclination, due to this unscrupulousness with which they are trampling the yields of centuries of civilizational development, and due to their eastern irresponsibility to their own conscience, which in every single matter allows them to be two-faced."

Yet despite such feelings towards "Muscovy" (as he called the Russian Empire), he was a follower of alliance with Russia against Germany.

And during WW1 Dmowski indeed sided with Russia against the Central Powers. While Dmowski's political enemy - Joseph Piłsudski - sided with Austria.

============================

In 1902 in his book "Thoughts of a Modern Pole" Dmowski predicted the fall of Germany and Prussia (which indeed took place during the next 45 years).

And in 1908 in another book - titled "Germany, Russia and the Polish Question" - he predicted the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia:

He wrote in that book, that Russia would face another Revolution, "even more terrible than that of 1905".

One can say bad things about some of Dmowski's views, but one can't deny that he had a sense of political realism. And his predictions came true.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Well, then you have 2 different interpretations of 'historical facts'. I should take yours over a Harvard and MIT professors why?

Literally two of the worst history faculties you could have cited.