Talk:European wars of religion
|WikiProject History||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
These wars were the birth pangs of the Modern state, not the results of religious violence
This article is terribly misnamed. Current scholarship finds the idea that the wars of this period were primarily motivated by religion both laughable and an embarrassing narrative used for centuries now to justify the ever-growing claims to authority and demands of obedience by the centralized state. See especially Thomas Cavanaugh on the question; for example, “'A Fire Strong Enough To Consume The House': The Wars of Religion & The Rise of the State" at . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an important comment and should not be ignored. The scholar s/he refers to is named William T. Cavanaugh; "A Fire Strong Enough To Consume the House" is an article that was later integrated into the first chapter of an entire book on the topic: "The Myth of Religious Violence."
Also important, I believe, would be the inclusion of Edward Hyde and James Harrington's perspectives. Both were 17th century contemporaries of Hobbes, but argued for the economic and legal causes of the violence of the era, anticipating in some ways the Marxist historiography of Europe's 16th and 17th century. On that, Perry Anderson would be of use.
- There is also an article, for instance, that deals with the "First Sacred War", which the article says was from 595 BC-585 BC in Greece. The article says the motivation for war was the protection of a religious site. --Concerned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thirty year's war
The sentence in the infobox : " his firm Catholicism was the proximate cause of the the war " should be removed to maintain NPOV of this article. This sentence is blaming the Catholic faith for the outbreak of the Thirty year's war.
The lead has this sentence "This article deals with Catholic involvement in these conflicts."
What is the function of this sentence? Does it mean that only conflicts in which Catholics were involved are within the scope of the article? I would just delete this sentence completely as I don't understand what purpose it serves.
- I have replaced the sentence. I think it came from a period when this article was more catholic-specific than it is now. Xandar 23:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The section on France repeats much from the original article - consider a rewrite to deal specifically with Catholic involvement or reducing the repetition by removing most of this section??? —Preceding comment added by Dragonfang88 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC) (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't understand the "Catholic involvement" bit. Were there any religious wars in France that didn't involve Catholics? We should not focus on Catholics. The Church of England also waged war on Protestants.
- That said, I'm OK with summarizing sections in this article such as the one on France so as not to duplicate the detail of the entire main article.
Of course, sorry, I was thinking 'Catholic involvement' because it's still headed as that on the link from the French Wars of Religion page, have changed that now to its current title of 'European wars of religion'. Though I think you'd have a hard time finding a religious war in France that doesn't consist of Catholics vs. X insert religion here X, them being the majority and all. Dragonfang88 (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
In this section, the article text reads "Lutherans could keep the territory that they had captured from the Catholic Church " I'm concerned about the phrase "from the Catholic Church". Is this accurate? Was the territory formerly belonging to "the Catholic Church"? Or to the Holy Roman Empire? This is not an area of expertise for me but it just sounded wrong to me so I figured I'd ask. --Richard S (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)