Fall 2025 · Vol. 54 No. 2 · pp. 213–228
Anabaptists and the Peasants’ War
“Within a few weeks, the Church has abandoned pacifism, indeed openly fought against it. . . . Unfortunately, the Church has girded itself with the sword. The Church has gone over to militarism.” The media reported that this war would have a “highly beneficial influence in terms of morality and religion. It is a war that is being waged in the interests of the highest goods of humanity, democracy and freedom, indeed of true religion, a war against war. This war, they say, is the last one; it will bring lasting peace to the world.” 1
Anabaptists sympathized with the political and economic concerns of the peasants and even fought alongside them in the Peasants’ War. Prominent Anabaptist figures were involved in the peasant uprisings to varying degrees and for different reasons.
This was the analysis and assessment of the Mennonite John Horsch, who commented on and critiqued the outbreak of World War I. He was born as Johannes Horsch near Würzburg, in Bavaria, and lived in Pennsylvania at the time of the analysis being quoted. Horsch emigrated to the U.S. in the second half of the nineteenth century because living p. 214 according to Christian principles of nonviolence was no longer possible for him in Germany. In the U.S., Horsch remained true to his Anabaptist principles.
He also remained an extremely critical, often controversial, sometimes very uncomfortable contemporary, tirelessly commenting on the conflicts among the Mennonites between tradition and modernity. 2 He continuously analyzed the world situation against the background of his Mennonite-Anabaptist worldview. His criticism of persuasive arguments intended to legitimize World War I leads us into a central point of Anabaptist-Mennonite self-understanding: the topic of nonviolence or nonresistance.
In this essay I will demonstrate some of the stages of Anabaptist-Mennonite nonviolence and explore relevant situations, contexts, and circumstances. 3 I will examine traces of the use of arms and force in the landscape of Anabaptist and Mennonite nonviolence that reveal paths that are not straight but winding, tortuous ones, with progress and setbacks. 4 Two introductory comments are germane to the topic. First, Anabaptists and Mennonites did not always find the same answers to the same questions (for the distinction between these two terms, see the explanation below). The political and social conditions, their life circumstances, and the personalities of the individuals involved were too varied. Second, the Anabaptist-Mennonite peace testimony cannot be viewed independently of its temporal, social, and confessional contexts. We embark on a journey beginning in the sixteenth century and the question of what positions on nonviolence and war can be found among the early Anabaptists, in particular on the relationship between Anabaptists and the Peasants’ War. This essay will demonstrate that Anabaptists— those who advocated for adult baptism and the independence of the church from the state—took a diversity of positions concerning the use of power and consistent nonviolence. For the sixteenth century, their relation to Thomas Müntzer and the Peasants’ War was important in various aspects.
The Winding Paths of Anabaptist-Mennonite Nonviolence
Anabaptist nonviolence in the sixteenth century was already responsible for the merciless condemnation of the Anabaptists. It was responsible for many a death sentence and for many expulsions because in Anabaptist nonviolence everything was grouped together: a “different” faith, social loyalty or disloyalty, and loyalty or disloyalty to the sovereign. Everything contributed to the alleged potential for riot and rebellion attributed to the Anabaptists. Proceeding to the seventeenth century, Anabaptist p. 215 nonviolence led to the expulsion of Anabaptists from the Reformed cantons of Switzerland. 5 Throughout the whole Early Modern period, the Anabaptists’ attitude toward nonviolence contributed significantly to their societal standing, one that varied between the accusation that Anabaptists threatened societal stability because they were not willing to defend the “fatherland,” and the view that the Mennonites were the least dangerous of “religious sects” because their conscience would not allow them to bear arms or “rebel” against legitimate authorities.
When in 2025 we look back on five hundred years, we not only encounter the first Anabaptist baptism but also the height of the Peasants’ War. 6 These two events took place at the same time and were closely interconnected. A Hutterite chronicler of the sixteenth century writes the following:
Thomas Münzer of Altstatt in Thuringia, a highly gifted, (highly eloquent) man, has written many excellent articles, taken from the Bible, directed against the Roman and also the Lutheran Church. He teaches about God and also about his living word and about God’s heavenly voice against all literalists [Buchstäbler]. The people were quick to accept this teaching and to resist the Roman clergy. Then the peasantry in the country suddenly arose, and Müntzer was not successful in keeping them in the Christian peace. 7
In Anabaptist memory, Müntzer was seen as a learned and gifted man who brought new ideas and challenged the old. In this way he inspired people. The Hutterite chronicler even added another very interesting assessment when he says that Müntzer also won over the peasants, but unfortunately he was not able to keep them in Christian peace. The actions of the peasants were distinguished from the intentions of Müntzer.
Thomas Müntzer, the Peasants’ War, and the Anabaptists—there seems to be an almost self-evident connection between those who wanted something new in their time or who wanted a new beginning. All understood the Bible anew as the living Word of God against all “literalists” and against all old denominations, as the previous quotation indicates. But this was also a dangerous connection and not an easy relationship because the Peasants’ War—alongside the debacle of “Münster”—was the main argument in political communication that legitimized the persecution, expulsion, and execution of the Anabaptists. And so the connection between the Peasants’ War and the Anabaptists also caused Mennonite historians some “confessional stomachache.” p. 216
Historiography: Confessional Stomachache
In 1664, the Dutch Doopsgezinde (Mennonite) Tieleman van Sittert published the German translation of what is probably the best-known Anabaptist confession, the Dordrecht Confession of 1632. In the preface, van Sittert discusses Thomas Müntzer and the Peasants’ War in great detail, and Müntzer is not as favorably portrayed as in the Hutterite Chronicle. Van Sittert sharply distances himself from any equation of the Anabaptists with Müntzer and the Peasants’ War, calling the latter these “utterly disgraceful spots of sedition and fanaticism of Thomas Müntzer and all likeminded agitators and spiritual instigators” having nothing to do with Anabaptism. 8
For van Sittert it was clear that it was merely an unfortunate coincidence of history that the Anabaptist congregations had formed at the very time when Müntzer was also active. And as van Sittert continues, he insists on a clear separation. Müntzer was an “insurrectionist and instigator of war against the authorities” and emerged from the circle of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt with no connection to Anabaptism. Van Sittert is very careful with his terminology, even attempting to redefine certain terms. In particular, he distances himself and his fellow believers from the defamatory and criminalizing term “Anabaptists,” which is the old German term Wiedertäufer. He distinguishes the Taufgesinnte and “Mennonites” clearly from Wiedertäufer. Van Sittert consciously—and self-confidently—locates “those inclined toward baptism” (and thus the Mennonites) within the spectrum of Protestantism. He argues they should be considered part of the Protestant tradition as “Reformed and Evangelical Christians.” 9 Incidentally, this is precisely where the important change in the nomenclature takes place that is still maintained today. We are “Mennonites” (Mennoniten) and not “Anabaptists” (Wiedertäufer in German).
When we move forward a few centuries, we discover that the later confessional Anabaptist-Mennonite historiography of the early twentieth century has long struggled with the relationship between the Peasants’ War and Anabaptism. In 1925, the theologian and historian Benjamin Unruh, originally from a Mennonite community in Russia, made this statement during the four hundred-year anniversary of Anabaptism: An “independent historical judgment” would have to “admit that Protestant Anabaptism had no direct relationship to or connection with the social revolution [Peasants’ War]” because the Anabaptists had not made their “religious demands arbitrarily, capriciously” but were “bound in their conscience” by “the ideal of a Christian community that serves its Lord p. 217 out of spontaneous will and in devoted, self-sacrificing, nonresistant love for people.” 10
Unruh draws the red line not only at the spiritual depth of Anabaptist faith but also at the willingness to use violence and the scope of criticism of societal conditions. “Righteous, believing Christians,” he writes, are like “sheep in the midst of wolves, sheep being led to the slaughter.” Thomas Müntzer had nothing to do with “such a mindset” when he began his “civil war.” According to Unruh, Anabaptists were “ethical activists,” not “social revolutionaries”; their criticism of existing social conditions was “not unrestrained.” 11
In his Anabaptist Vision, published in 1944, the American Mennonite historian Harold S. Bender echoed similar sentiments as Unruh. As is well known, his aim was to portray a pure Swiss archetype of Anabaptists to the congregations of the 1940s. He defined the pure Swiss archetype by the following criteria: “following Jesus Christ” (discipleship), “the church as a brotherhood” of voluntary believers, and a “new ethic of love and nonresistance.” Here, the Peasants’ War and Anabaptism were fundamentally incompatible, even in their intentions. According to Bender, “genuine Anabaptism” had been obscured by “Thomas Müntzer and the Peasants’ War, the Münsterites,” and “other aberrations of Protestantism in the sixteenth century.” 12
From these examples, we can conclude the following about confessional historiography: The relationship of Anabaptists and the Peasants’ War directly challenges the core of Mennonite beliefs, namely the topics of nonviolence and separation from the world. Every contemporary who in the 1520s rose up in any way with violent actions against the authorities and fought for justice in political and spiritual regard and later became an Anabaptist disrupted the narrative of nonviolent and separated Anabaptists, who were envisioned as a confessionally “pure Anabaptism” from the start.
Politics, Transfer of Ideas, and Reform
In 1975, German Mennonite historian Heinold Fast wrote an essay titled “Reformation Through Provocation,” in which he addressed an attitude that united the early Reformation, the peasants, and the Anabaptists across regions. Wherever there was a peasant uprising, Anabaptists were somehow involved eventually. Also, they were by no means the “quiet ones in the land” but stood out by actions such as disturbing sermons and processions. Interestingly, Fast classified these actions as a sign of the maturity of the believers and the congregation. 13 Anabaptists stood p. 218 out through verbal attacks on authorities and through the call to refuse the tithe.
But this does not mean that Anabaptism can be reduced to a social revolutionary cause. This is just as illegitimate as the deliberately raised dividing lines between “peasants” and “Anabaptists,” as just described. A much more helpful way of approaching the relationship between peasants and Anabaptists is to focus on their overlaps and common concerns. The peasants saw themselves rooted within the “pure gospel,” and the Anabaptists, for their part, were concerned about the structure of society and contemporary grievances.
Identifying these intersections between peasants and later Anabaptists does not make the “peasants” “Anabaptists” or the “Anabaptists” into “peasants,” but it reduces artificially raised dividing lines and demarcations that did not exist in sixteenth-century society. If one considers the individual demands of the peasants and traces them to their overarching ideas, they crystallize into the condemnation of self-interest (Eigennutz), the desire to focus on the common good, the call for justice as a social (and spiritual) norm, and the call for the equality of all believers. The peasants called for equality and community, rejecting the dominance of one institution or of individual actors. All should decide on the appointment and dismissal of preachers and on the use of finances, and the tithe should go to those who preach in the church and should not be misused. The “Christian framing” of the peasants’ demands underlines their biblical context, as historian Gerd Schwerhoff recently described it. 14 To continue this thread, all these demands and concerns of the peasants could also be adopted by the Anabaptists, which indicates that a transfer of ideas had taken place. This can be shown by a brief look at the three main geographical regions of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation where the Peasants’ War left its mark on future Anabaptists.
Southwest Germany and Switzerland: Political Constellations and Attempts at Emancipation
In the southwestern part of Germany, all the provocations mentioned earlier were carried out by both the peasants and the Anabaptists. This is especially visible in the person of the later Anabaptist Balthasar Hubmaier because he embodied the union of both Peasants’ War politics and Reformation or Anabaptist awakening. 15 He adds an interesting political level to the discussion. In 1524 Hubmaier was in Waldshut, having introduced the Reformation there a year earlier. In doing so, he had also positioned himself politically, as Waldshut belonged to the Catholic p. 219 Habsburgs. This political constellation was also the reason why both the town of Waldshut and the Reformation preacher Hubmaier supported early actions by peasants in the region. They had searched for allies in the struggle to strengthen their own (Reformation) position vis-à-vis the Habsburg sovereigns. The town of Waldshut thus attempted to emancipate itself from Habsburg power, and Hubmaier supported this effort. In response, the Habsburgs demanded that the Waldshut authorities hand Hubmaier over to the Bishop of Constance.
As a preacher, Hubmaier supported the resistance against the sovereign and thus also against the emperor on the grounds that the emperor was acting against the Word of God by fighting the Reformation. At the same time, however, in 1524 Hubmaier became increasingly open to Anabaptist convictions. He declared the baptism of faith and Lord’s Supper, which he wanted to celebrate as a communal meal, to be ideals of the congregation of the apostles. At Easter 1525, Hubmaier was finally baptized by Wilhelm Reublin.
Tyrol: Common Groups that Criticize Society
In the mid-1520s, circles of peasant warriors and future Anabaptists emerged in Tyrol. Werner Packull has described them extensively in his study of the Hutterites in that region. 16 These groups were highly critical of both the authorities and the old church. They were against the mass and the sacraments, with heated criticism of Catholic preachers and fasting practices. They called for refusing the oath of allegiance and criticized the wars of the sovereigns; they also promoted the priesthood of all believers, an inwardly strong faith, and an authentic life of faith. Numerous names of later Anabaptists can be found in these “sacramental circles” in Tyrol.
When Georg Blaurock, one of the first Anabaptists in Switzerland, came to Tyrol in 1527, he made contact with members of these circles. We also know that relatives of the leading figure of the Tyrolean Peasants’ War, Michael Gaismair, were adherents of the Anabaptist faith. Some of them, including a son of Gaismair, even emigrated to Moravia and presumably joined the Hutterites there. 17
The Peasants’ War Around Thomas Müntzer: Ideator and a Place of Remembrance
With this, we turn our attention to central Germany. 18 Here, the major event in the Peasants’ War is of course the Battle of Frankenhausen in May 1525. It is known that the future Anabaptists Hans Hut, Hans Römer, and Melchior Rinck were involved. To take a look behind the scenes of the p. 220 concrete actions and violent confrontations means to turn to the ideas of the Peasants’ War and to encounter the theologian behind the Peasants’ War, Thomas Müntzer. 19
We know that some later Anabaptists in Zurich, and in other regions as well, read Müntzer’s writings and were pleased to note that this Thomas Müntzer addressed some of the same theological criticisms maintained by the later Anabaptists. And their ideas were not so far apart. The letter that the Swiss proto-Anabaptists around Conrad Grebel wrote to Thomas Müntzer in September 1524 has attracted a great deal of attention in research. The later Anabaptists write,
we have heard and confirmed [concerning you] and are highly pleased that we found one who has a common Christian understanding with us and can show the Protestant preachers their shortcomings, as they are and act wrongly in all respects.
They address Müntzer as follows: “Count us as your brethren, and take this our letter as our confident expression of great joy and hope toward you through God.” 20
Also in 1524 in Nuremberg lived Hans Denck who later became an Anabaptist. As a theologian oriented toward the Reformation, Denck was rector of the school at St. Sebald in Nuremberg. Together with Hans Hut he was responsible for overseeing the printing of the writings of Thomas Müntzer. The writings of other Reformation theologians from central Germany also found interested readers among the Anabaptists or proto-Anabaptists, for example, those of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Jakob Strauß, and Simon Haferitz. 21
And there is an additional example to mention. In the winter of 1524–1525, Felix Mantz arranged for the printing of Karlstadt’s writings in Basel. Like Müntzer, Karlstadt was a critic of infant baptism. Additional commonalities include the emphasis on inner faith, the emphasis on lay piety, the maturity of the Christian, and ultimately also the demand for rapid reforms. While neither he nor Müntzer is known to have baptized adults, 22 such aspects of reform made Müntzer and his followers extremely attractive to the later Anabaptists.
The most well-known and significant connection from Thomas Müntzer and his ideas to Anabaptism can certainly be found in the person of Hans Hut. He was one of the most influential early Anabaptists and spent the years 1524–1525 in the circle of Thomas Müntzer in Mühlhausen and later in Frankenhausen. Hut’s name can be found in the 1524 “Eternal Covenant of God” list from Mühlhausen; incidentally also, the name of the p. 221 later Anabaptist Hans Römer is found there. Hans Hut was born around 1490 in Haina, in the County of Henneberg, in southern Thuringia. Further south, in the region around Nuremberg, was his early main sphere of activity. Later he was also active as an Anabaptist preacher in the Augsburg region and reached Upper Austria, the area around Linz, and Moravia.
Hut represented a mystical-spiritualistic Anabaptism, directly influenced by Thomas Müntzer in many specific topics. Thanks to the late historian Gottfried Seebaß, Thomas Müntzer’s legacy is more than evident in the teachings of Hut. Seebaß titled his book about Hut Müntzers Erbe (legacy). 23 If one takes a closer look at a few of the spiritual topics both shared, there can first of all be found the emphasis on the inner word. Hut, like Müntzer, was convinced that Scripture could not create faith, but that it could only serve as a “testimony” to faith. It was the Spirit who teaches human beings. 24 For Hut, baptism was a consequent step in following Jesus. However, he did not consider external water baptism absolutely necessary. 25 Baptism was merely a “sign.” Besides this, for Hut baptism symbolized the sealing of believers for the end times, a means of saving believers from the last judgment. Thus, he merely dipped his fingers in water and traced a cross on the forehead of the baptized person. Hut believed in a remnant of 144,000 elect according to Revelation 7.
The second topic Müntzer and Hut shared was the theology of suffering and the cross. Hans Hut advocated a decided suffering and cross theology. He formulated it very emphatically in the “Gospel of All Creatures,” which he also took over from Thomas Müntzer. For Hut, the “Gospel of All Creatures” meant that all of God’s creatures would have to submit to the higher one, which is not possible without suffering. Ultimately, this meant that mortals must submit to God; Hut was convinced that mortals must be prepared to trust God and bear suffering and, in the final consequence, must be prepared to die for the faith. On the basis of this political theology, both Hut and Müntzer assumed an absolutely pure Christianity, an idea that was accompanied by strong criticism of the state of Christianity at the time. In Hut’s opinion, the erdichtete Glaube (i.e., the “fictive faith”) and infant baptism had corrupted Christianity throughout history. He criticized adherents of the old (Catholic) faith as well as Reformation scholars and theologians.
What did Hut mean by “fictive faith”? It was a faith that relies solely on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross and on the grace of divine forgiveness, a faith that does not recognize the importance of following Jesus Christ and that does not bear fruit in people’s lives. It was a faith without suffering and following the cross—which for Hans Hut was p. 222 always part of the faith. His verdict on infant baptism is not surprisingly scathing. Hut was convinced that by baptizing children, everyone becomes a Christian, whether he or she believes or not. 26
In Hut’s opinion, the described corruption must be combated. And here Hut—again building on Thomas Müntzer’s ideas—takes the authorities to task. Neither Hut nor Müntzer embraced the doctrine of the “two kingdoms.” Both present a theocratic notion of sovereignty that obliges the authorities to ensure the right worship of God and to eradicate sin and sinners. 27 According to Romans 13, the authorities shall protect the good and punish the wicked. If the authorities do not fulfill this task, they can be classified as “tyrannical,” but in Hans Hut’s theology, it was up to God to bring judgment on the “wicked.” “Believers” were prohibited from resisting or taking up the sword. Here, too, the Christians’ willingness to suffer was essential, and suffering equaled obedience.
Nevertheless, Hans Hut left the door a little bit open to the legitimate use of violence. Since he believed that the parousia—the return of Jesus Christ—was imminent and thus also the final battle of the Christians, he opened the door to taking up arms. Hut had even formulated a specific date for the second coming of Jesus Christ: early summer 1528. A testimony by Hans Weischenfelder from Uetzing in Upper Franconia suggests that there were even indications of ideas regarding a specific order for the end times. He testifies in 1528, “And if they had slain the authorities and the lords, they would have come to an agreement to have Hansen Huten as ruler on earth and Christ as Lord in heaven.” 28
If one follows further the line of tradition, Hut’s convictions can be found in many testimonies by his followers in southern Germany and Austria. In Moravia the Hutterites not only praised Thomas Müntzer, but also Hans Hut; for them he was “a faithful servant of Jesus Christ.” 29 In the Hutterite tradition Hut stands explicitly for the nonviolent orientation in contrast to Balthasar Hubmaier. The debate that Hubmaier had with Hans Hut in Nikolsburg in 1527 about nonviolence and the use of the sword, among other things, is well known. Incidentally, the Hutterite Geschichtbuch (history book) also reports that Hans Hut’s son Philipp was living in the Hutterite community. 30
Turning from Hans Hut to the “common Anabaptist,” especially in central Germany, there can be found a number of testimonies made during interrogations that reveal direct links to Thomas Müntzer or keep his memory specifically alive. In fact, a special Anabaptist place of remembrance named “Thomas Müntzer” was created. 31 The characteristics of this place of remembrance are as follows. First is the conviction that Müntzer p. 223 had been wrongfully killed. We find this conviction in the sources several times, and it was also mentioned as reason for the intended Anabaptist coup in Erfurt in 1527 when Anabaptists, in anticipation of the supposedly imminent return of Jesus Christ, were planning to chase all non-Anabaptist preachers out of the city and take over the control of the city. Hans Römer, well-known Anabaptist in Hesse, was part of the insurgents. In the end, the plan was discovered beforehand. 32 But what is interesting in our context is that the Erfurt Anabaptists justified their rebellion as revenge on the defeat and death of Thomas Müntzer. 33
The importance of Thomas Müntzer in the central German Anabaptist movement is also obvious when we read testimonies that declare Müntzer as the warhaftige lerer (the true teacher). 34 As late as 1537, Jakob Storger stated in Mühlhausen that Müntzer was “one of the prophets listed in the Revelation of John.” 35 For the year 1527, there is a report of a meeting in Eisleben where baptisms also took place. The sources report that a woman there had Thomas Müntzer’s books in her hand and prayed from them. 36 It can therefore be assumed that Thomas Müntzer’s ideas were recognized widely and quite permanently in later Anabaptist circles, as we have seen earlier in the Hutterite Chronicle. However, one small but important clarification has to be made: most Anabaptists distanced themselves from Müntzer regarding his use of violence and rebellion. Yet the relationship between the Anabaptists and the Peasants’ War certainly raises fundamental questions on the Anabaptists’ attitude to violence and war.
Nikolsburg: Hubmaier and God’s Kingdom
The closing episode of this essay takes place in Nikolsburg. In this small south Moravian town, various Anabaptist groups came together. Among them was Anabaptist Balthasar Hubmaier who had been a supporter of the peasants in Waldshut. After the Habsburgs recatholized Waldshut, forcing Hubmaier to leave the town, he turned to Nikolsburg. Here he achieved something quite extraordinary. He carried out an Anabaptist reformation in association with the lords of the town, the nobles of Liechtenstein. In Nikolsburg, Anabaptists found more space to put their ideas into practice than anywhere else.
However, the “peace of the Anabaptist Reformation” was abruptly disturbed when a group of Anabaptists arrived in Nikolsburg with views differing from Hubmaier’s. Their leader was Jakob Wiedemann. He and his people came to Nikolsburg with the idea of complete nonviolence, and conflicts with others there were not long in coming. Hubmaier had only been able to carry out his Anabaptist reformation by adopting a more p. 224 pragmatic stance on nonviolence. For one, he did not cling to the strict separation between “being an Anabaptist Christian” and the “world” as laid down, for example, in the Articles of Schleitheim of 1527. Hubmaier even went so far as to criticize this rigid approach. He wrote that some brothers say that a Christian should not bear arms, on the grounds that “the Christian kingdom is not of this world.” 37
Hubmaier disagreed and justified his stance by drawing on the Lord’s Prayer: “If such people would open their eyes properly, they would speak differently. . . . For, may God be lamented, our kingdom is unfortunately of this world, as we clearly confess in the Lord’s Prayer, where we pray, Father, Thy kingdom come. We are therefore in the kingdom of the world.” Since Christians therefore are automatically part of the world—and cannot withdraw from it—Hubmaier also assumed that the authority can be Christian. And furthermore, he argued that an Anabaptist Christian can hold an office of authority inasmuch as representatives of the authorities can rightly be committed to Christian values.
But at the same time, Hubmaier continued, an authority can also be non-Christian. And it is better, said Hubmaier, to have a Christian authority than a non-Christian one—“the lesser of two evils.” However, he applied very strict standards to a Christian authority. The use of the sword would be allowed, perhaps even defense, but the sword should not be used for revenge; this would be left to God. Punishment, said Hubmaier, can and should only ever happen at God’s command. And the authorities would only act the way they do, which means with the sword, because they are legitimized to do so by God. 38
Conclusion
Peasants argued biblically while Anabaptists stood out through their theocratic ideas of sovereignty and through high-profile, sometimes violent actions in which resentments of the subjects were vented at the local level. It is common knowledge that there were connections between the Peasants’ War and Anabaptism, and that later Anabaptists sympathized with the political and economic concerns of the peasants and even fought alongside them in the Peasants’ War. Prominent figures, such as Hans Hut, Melchior Rinck, Hans Römer, and Balthasar Hubmaier, are examples of this. They were involved in the peasant uprisings to varying degrees and for different reasons. However, quantifying the participation of later Anabaptists in the peasant uprisings is a difficult undertaking because of the available sources. p. 225
The transfer of ideas is a little easier to prove; it can be traced in the case of Hans Hut and his followers but also regarding other Anabaptist groups. Over the centuries, the Peasants’ War also became a portent or warning sign (Menetekel in German) for Anabaptist congregations. The imperial decrees and the mandates of the authorities constantly reestablished a connection, and leading theologians also provided justifications for corresponding causal relationships. The narrative of rebellion proved viable for a long time and could be dusted off from the mothballs of historicizing arguments in times of crisis in order to alert the public in an effective way.
Notes
- John Horsch, Die biblische Lehre von der Wehrlosigkeit (Scottdale, PA, 1920), 93–94.
- See “Horsch, John,” MennLex V, https://www.mennlex.de/doku.php?id=art:horsch_john.
- See in general regarding the five-hundred-year history of Anabaptism, Astrid von Schlachta, Anabaptists: From the Reformation to the 21st Century (Bolton, ON, 2025); Troy Osborne, Radicals and Reformers: A Survey of Global Anabaptist History (Harrisonburg, VA, 2024); Andrea Strübind, “ ‘Radikale Reformation’: Hintergründe, Forschungsperspektiven und alternative Konzeptionen,” Blätter für pfälzische Kirchengeschichte und religiöse Volkskunde 90 (2023): 73–84.
- See in general, Astrid von Schlachta, “ ‘Durch den Krieg ist noch nie ein dauernder Friede erkämpft worden.’ Impulse täuferischer Gewaltfreiheit vom 16. Jahrhundert bis zur Moderne,” Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 81 (2024): 33–53; Clarence Bauman, Gewaltlosigkeit im Täufertum: Eine Untersuchung zur theologischen Ethik des oberdeutschen Täufertums der Reformationszeit (Leiden, 1968); Peter Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914 (Princeton, 1972).
- Urs B. Leu and Christian Scheidegger, Die Züricher Täufer 1525–1700 (Zürich, 2007), esp. 203–76.
- New publications on the Peasants’ War include Thomas Kaufmann, Der Bauernkrieg: Ein Medienereignis (Freiburg, 2024) and Gerd Schwerhoff, Der Bauernkrieg: Eine wilde Handlung (München, 2024).
- Josef Beck, Die Geschichts-Bücher der Wiedertäufer in Oesterreich-Ungarn (Wien, 1883), 13. p. 226
- Christliche Glaubens-Bekentnus Der waffenlosen und fürnehmlich in den Niederländern (unter dem nahmen der Mennonisten) wohlbekannten Christen, ed. T.T.V.S. [Tieleman Tielen van Sittert] (Amsterdam, 1664), 106–48, here 121, 129–30.
- Van Sittert, 148.
- B[enjamin] H. Unruh, “Die Revolution 1525 und das Täufertum,” in Konferenz der Süddeutschen Mennoniten, Gedenkschrift zum 400jährigen Jubiläum der Mennoniten oder Taufgesinnten 1525–1925 (Ludwigshafen, 1925), 19–47, here 46–47.
- Unruh, “Revolution 1525,” 46–47.
- Harold S. Bender, The Anabaptist Vision (Scottdale, PA; Waterloo, ON, 1944), 20, 11.
- Heinold Fast, “Reformation durch Provokation. Predigtstörungen in den ersten Jahren der Reformation in der Schweiz,” in Umstrittenes Täufertum 1525–1975: Neue Forschungen, ed. Hans-Jürgen Goertz (Göttingen, 1975), 79–110, esp. 106–9.
- Schwerhoff, Bauernkrieg, 148.
- Torsten Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier: Seine Stellung zu Reformation und Täufertum 1521–1528 (Kassel, 1961); Schwerhoff, Bauernkrieg, 71–74.
- In general, Werner O. Packull, Die Hutterer in Tirol: Frühes Täufertum in der Schweiz, Tirol und Mähren (Innsbruck, 2000), esp. 200–12; Astrid von Schlachta, “Die Täufer in Tirol: Rückblick und Ausblick,” in Jahrbuch für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich 123 (2007), 9–26; Josef Macek, Der Tiroler Bauernkrieg und Michael Gaismair (Berlin, 1965); Ralf Höller, Die Bauernkriege 1525–1526: Vom Kampf gegen Unterdrückung zum Traum einer Republik (Stuttgart and Bozen, 2024).
- Jürgen Bücking, “Matthias Messerschmieds ‘reformatorische’ Agitation in Klausen (1527),” Der Schlern 46 (1972): 342–44.
- See in general, John S. Oyer, “Anabaptism in Central Germany, I. The Rise and Spread of the Movement,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 34 (1960): 219–48; idem, “Anabaptism in Central Germany, II: Faith and Life,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 35 (1961): 5–37; Kat Hill, Baptism, Brotherhood, and Belief in Reformation Germany: Anabaptism and Lutheranism, 1525–1585 (Oxford, 2015); Astrid von Schlachta, Die Täufer in Thüringen: Von wehrhaften Anfängen zur wehrlosen Gelassenheit (Jena, 2017).
- Peter Nitschke, Staatsräson kontra Utopie? Von Thomas Müntzer bis zu Friedrich II. von Preußen (Stuttgart and Weimar, 1995), 104–5; Thomas T. Müller, Thomas Müntzer im Bauernkrieg: Fakten, Fiktionen, Desiderate (Mühlhausen, 2016); Siegfried Bräuer and Günter Vogler, Thomas Müntzer. Neu Ordnung machen in der Welt (Gütersloh, 2016). p. 227
- Quoted from Leonhard von Muralt, ed., Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vol. 1. Zürich (Zürich, 1952), 13–21, here 13; see in general, J. F. Gerhard Goeters, “Die Vorgeschichte des Täufertums in Zürich,” in Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation. Festschrift für Ernst Bizer, ed. Luise Abramowski and J. F. Gerhard Goeters (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), 239–81, here 246, 256–57; Günther Franz, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg, 4th ed. (Darmstadt, 1956); James M. Stayer, The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist Community of Goods (Montreal, 1991); idem, Anabaptists and the Sword (Lawrence, 1982); see also idem, “Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg und das Täufertum: 1524 und 1525,” Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 81 (2024): 9–24; Astrid von Schlachta, “Vom Ideentransfer zum schwierigen Erbe: Bauernkrieg und Täufertum,” forthcoming 2025 in Jahrbuch für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich.
- For more information, see Ulrich Bubenheimer, Consonantia Theologiae et Iurisprudentiae: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt als Theologe und Jurist zwischen Scholastik und Reformation (Tübingen, 1977); Friedel Kriechbaum, Grundzüge der Theologie Karlstadts (Hamburg, 1967); Alejandro Zorzin, Karlstadt als Flugschriftenautor (Göttingen, 1990); Günter Vogler, Nürnberg 1524–1525: Studien zur Geschichte der reformatorischen und sozialen Bewegung in der Reichsstadt (Berlin, 1982).
- See Hans-Jürgen Goertz, “Karlstadt, Müntzer and the Reformation of the Commoners, 1521–1525,” in John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, eds., A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700 (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 1–44; also Werner O. Packull, “In Search of the ‘Common Man’ in Early German Anabaptist Theology,” Sixteenth Century Journal 17 (1986): 15–67.
- Gottfried Seebaß, Müntzers Erbe: Werk, Leben und Theologie des Hans Hut (Gütersloh, 2002); see also, Werner O. Packull, “Thomas Müntzer und das Hutsche Täufertum,” Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 46 (1989): 30–42; Walter Klaassen, “Hans Hut and Thomas Müntzer,” Baptist Quarterly 19 (1962): 209–27.
- Seebaß, Müntzers Erbe, 177, 179.
- Seebaß, Müntzers Erbe, 426.
- Gottfried Seebaß, “Bauernkrieg und Täufertum in Franken,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 85 (1974): 140–56, esp. 146–47.
- Seebaß, Müntzers Erbe, 492–93.
- Hansen Huten = Hans Hut. Quotation acc. to Seebaß, “Bauernkrieg und Täufertum in Franken,” 151; Paul Wappler, Die Täuferbewegung in Thüringen von 1526–1584 (Gustav Fischer, 1913), 281; also Seebaß, Müntzers Erbe, 359–60.
- Rudolf Wolkan, ed., Das große Geschichtbuch der Hutterischen Brüder, Twilight Colony (Falher, 1990), 46.
- Wolkan, Geschichtbuch, 47. p. 228
- See Gerhard Zschäbitz, Zur mitteldeutschen Wiedertäuferbewegung nach dem großen Bauernkrieg (Berlin, 1958), 26–27.
- Astrid von Schlachta, Täufer in Thüringen, esp. 20–34; Marion Kobelt-Groch, “ ‘Wiedertäufer’: Eine Sage aus Thüringen,” Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 72 (2015): 133–39.
- Wappler, Thüringen, 363.
- Wappler, Thüringen, 253.
- Wappler, Thüringen, 429.
- Wappler, Thüringen, 257.
- Gunnar Westin and Torsten Bergsten, eds., Balthasar Hubmaier: Schriften. Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer 9 (Heidelberg, 1962), 436; see also Bergsten, Hubmaier, esp. 297–301, 320–23, 436; Robert Friedmann, “The Nicolsburg Articles: A Problem of Early Anabaptist History,” Church History 36 (1967): 391–409.
- Quoted from Westin and Bergsten, Hubmaier, 437, 447, 452, 455.
