The Mad Monarchist looks at HIM Rudolf II, the man whose mistakes are often blamed for the Thirty Years War.
From The Mad Monarchist (18 July 2017)
It was on this day in 1552 that Rudolf von Habsburg, the future Holy
Roman Emperor of the German Nation, was born in Vienna, Austria to
Emperor Maximilian II and his Empress Maria of Spain. He came to the
various Habsburg thrones from 1572 to 1576 as King of Hungary and
Croatia, King of Bohemia, King of Germany and finally as the
Emperor-Elect. Today, when Emperor Rudolf II is remembered, he tends to
be remembered as one of the oddballs of the Habsburg dynasty at best and
at worst he is blamed for the outbreak of the horrific Thirty Years War
which devastated central Europe for decades and left Germany in ruins
for many decades to come after. It was one of the most truly devastating
events in all of German history and probably nothing like it was seen
until the utter destruction of defeat in 1945. Emperor Rudolf II will
certainly not make my list of “favorite Habsburg monarchs” but the fact
that he is so ridiculed or outright despised by so many people on both
ends of the political spectrum means that I cannot help but at least
have some sympathy for him.
What is the problem with Emperor Rudolf II? Why is so much ridicule and
blame heaped on him? There is certainly, if most accounts are believed,
much in him worthy of criticism. However, I think the reason why so much
is heaped on him is, at least to a large extent, because he managed to
alienate both ends by trying to steer a middle course in his policies.
One will also notice that, to justify opposition or a negative opinion
of Emperor Rudolf II, critics will more readily address his personal
life rather than his policies because, if one looks at his policies, I
think it becomes much more difficult for the “left” and the “right” (so
to speak) to criticize him without more than a bit of hypocrisy or
revealing their overreach. People want to look for scapegoats, they want
to find a “villain” for every story and for many on both sides of the
political spectrum, Emperor Rudolf II was an obvious target. What can
make the disinterested observer feel some pity for Rudolf II is that, in
modern times, he will be attacked from the right for doing certain
things, attacked by the left for doing other things yet never praised by
the left or the right for doing the things that the other side attacks
him for.
There are, of course, people on the left today who will criticize
Emperor Rudolf II simply for being an emperor, pointing to him as a
totally unfit person who came to power simply because of an accident of
birth who was inept, corrupt and tyrannical. Yet, few right-wing
monarchists will defend Emperor Rudolf II because of his policies or
personal life and much of this comes down to the religious divide in
western Christianity between Catholics and Protestants. Each have some
valid points to make yet, I would say that the fact that these divisions
existed in his own lifetime to such an extent, even within his own
family, that this rather disproves the notion that blame for the Thirty
Years War could be laid solely at his doorstep. Catholics dislike Rudolf
II because, honestly, he was not much of a Catholic, he certainly was
not devout or personally pious and if certain accusations about him are
to be believed, he was very far from that. He also made concessions to
the Protestants which angered the Catholics immensely. However, this did
not, in turn, win him much loyalty from the Protestants since, after
all, no matter how nominally, he was still a Catholic and the head of a
traditionally Catholic dynasty and leader of an officially Catholic
empire.
In this regard though, I think Rudolf II was a victim of bad timing and
those who heap undue amounts of blame on him, I think, tend to forget
the historical context of his life. For example, Emperor Charles V,
Rudolf’s great-uncle, also made concessions to the Protestants and, as
those familiar with the horrific ‘Sack of Rome’ know, even used
Protestant soldiers to make war on the Pope. Yet, Emperor Charles V was
known to be a very staunch Catholic personally and, as a champion of
Christendom, Catholics tend to forgive him for these things. Yet, it
highlights the precedent that he set. Charles V had fought the
Protestants to be sure but he ultimately made concessions to them
because he considered it more important to have peace and at least some
degree of unity in Germany so that he could focus on fighting the
French, the Italians and the Turks. His younger son and heir to the
German half of his continental empire, Emperor Ferdinand I (Rudolf’s
grandfather), also opted for a policy of religious neutrality between
the Catholics and Protestants in order to maintain the peace in Germany.
He pushed for reform in the Catholic Church, was generally tolerant of
Protestants but allowed them no further power, hoping that the division
would be solved by reconciliation.
Finally, Emperor Rudolf’s father, Emperor Maximilian II, went even
farther with trying to bring both sides together. He was more generous
toward the Protestants, so much so that some suspected him of having
Protestant sympathies, yet he still refused to give them access to the
‘top tier’ as it were of imperial power by allowing Protestant
prince-bishops. However, at the same time, he pushed for the Catholic
Church to change in ways that would make it more acceptable to the
Protestants, again, in the hope that the religious division could be
ended by finding a middle ground that would accommodate both the
Catholic and Protestant camps. Obviously, he was not successful but,
given the actions of his predecessors, it should hardly come as a
surprise that Emperor Rudolf II would not have the makings of a
religious zealot about him. Emperor Rudolf II was, in my view, simply
not very religious at all, which is not to say he was an atheist or
completely uncaring about the subject but that the theological divisions
between the Catholics and Protestants were on a level that simply did
not interest him and I can imagine him being baffled as to why the two
sides could not just stop arguing about such things and get on with
other business.
Emperor Rudolf II did make even further concessions to the Protestants
but it was not because he agreed or sympathized with them but rather
that he wanted to stop them from rebelling and if some greater degree of
rights and privileges would do the job, he would give those to them.
The reason why the outbreak of the Thirty Years War is so often laid at
his feet is that it was these concessions which seemed to be threatened
by his successor and which the Protestants rose up to demand be honored
that led to the initial outbreak of hostilities. However, as well as
what happened under the emperors before him, people also tend to forget
what happened after him as his end ultimately came when his brother
Matthias rebelled against him and ultimately deposed him, fearful that
Rudolf was diminishing the imperial power. However, to gain the support
of the Protestants in order to take power from his brother, Matthias too
had to make further concessions to them and he too carried on the
tradition of trying to find a middle path that would, if not reconcile,
at least keep the peace between the Catholic and Protestant factions.
Things only really boiled over when Emperor Matthias died and was
succeeded by Emperor Ferdinand II who, for a change, was a very serious
Catholic and who was most intent on seeing religious divisions ended in
the empire by restoring Catholic supremacy.
As we know, that never quite worked out either and ultimately both sides
eventually had to learn to live with each other. Emperor Rudolf II did
do something which, I would think, traditional Catholics would applaud
him for, yet it is more often a source of criticism against him which
was to push for another crusade. He hoped that he could unite the
Christians of Germany and, perhaps, Christendom as a whole, by another
war against the Ottoman Turks. The Muslims, after all, saw no difference
between a Catholic infidel and a Protestant infidel so, perhaps, Rudolf
reasoned that this would bring the bickering Christians of Europe
together against a common enemy. Unfortunately for him, this did not
work and the war was a long, grueling affair which ultimately
accomplished almost nothing. Spain made some contribution as did most of
the Italian states to this frustrating conflict known as “the Long War”
but it proved to be a bloody stalemate with neither side gaining a
clear advantage. For Rudolf II, it was a drain of men, resources and
brought no greater Christian unity as, in order to prosecute the war, as
emperors almost invariably had to do, he was compelled to make
concessions to the various subsidiary princes to contribute men and
resources to the ultimately fruitless conflict.
So, his religious policies angered Catholics while still not earning any
great loyalty from the Protestants and his foreign policy proved to be
ineffective and costly. All of these concessions to various groups also
encouraged opposition from within the Habsburg family ranks as they saw
imperial power being diminished further and further yet, as mentioned
above, the younger brother who ultimately dethroned him would find that
he would have no choice but to do the same. Most, however, choose to
focus on the personal life of Emperor Rudolf II and he was an unusual
and rather colorful character to be sure. As monarchs do not tend to
make a public issue of their sexual proclivities, I prefer to avoid the
subject, to the frustration of some readers I have noticed. Rest
assured, I am well aware that many regard King Frederick the Great of
Prussia or King James I of Great Britain as homosexuals, I simply do not
care. I think one could argue the point and I do not see how it could
be proven with any degree of certainty one way or the other and, while I
certainly think it matters in moral terms, as long as they keep it to
themselves, it does not matter *to me*. Were they so inclined and were
they to make a public issue of it, trying to push this as acceptable or
praiseworthy behavior, then I would certainly have a problem with it.
As with a growing list of historical figures, Emperor Rudolf II has now
also been deemed by many to have been a homosexual. Personally, I do not
know what his sexual preferences were and would rather keep it that
way. There are some such royals about whom I have no doubts, some
prominent cases which most accept but which I tend to disbelieve but
with Rudolf II, I really have no idea one way or the other. There seems
to be just as much “evidence” to me that he was as there is that he was
not. He talked about marriage a lot but never went through with it,
there are rumors of some homosexual relationships yet there are even
more rumors of heterosexual relationships and illegitimate children that
he produced. My only conclusion is that he does seem to have been a
rather lustful man which is hardly uncommon. Rumors of affairs are
things I put very little weight in as gossip is often spread maliciously
but the, sometimes rather explicit, erotic artwork Rudolf collected is
the primary basis for my admittedly banal assessment of his private
life. Was he or wasn’t he? I don’t know but Emperor Rudolf II did seem
to be a bit of a pervert.
I only mention this at all because it is something that Rudolf II does
tend to be criticized for and yet, I have noticed that this is usually a
red herring. Particularly among those who think there should be no
limit to sexual practices, partners or proclivities at all, there is a
noticeable habit of always trying to paint those you dislike as some
sort of sexual deviant. Everyone knows, for example, that Eva Braun was
the mistress of Adolf Hitler and everyone knows that Clara Petacci was
the mistress of Benito Mussolini. Does anyone know the name of Franklin
Roosevelt’s mistress? Does anyone know of any affairs by Winston
Churchill or Joseph Stalin? I doubt this is an accident. Consider also,
if you live in the west, how many times you have seen those photos of
Vladimir Putin riding a horse without a shirt splashed across the media.
This, I think, illustrates my point well enough. Everyone knows who Eva
Braun was but I bet no one reading this could name FDR’s secretary he
had the affair with without looking.
Aside from this issue though, Rudolf II was also accused of being so
devoted to intellectual and artistic pursuits that he neglected
government. This may actually be true, however, I have not failed to
notice that be it Emperor Rudolf, Britain’s King Edward VIII, President
Trump or President Obama, people seem to complain the most about rulers
who shirk their duty even though they think those exact rulers are
ruling badly. If they are not good at their job, one would think you
would be happy to see them abdicating, playing golf or, in the case of
Rudolf II, devoting himself to art, music and certain currently
discredited fields of science. Again, it is certainly true that Rudolf
II spent a great deal of time and money collecting works of art,
however, criticism for him over this may be more due to the fact that it
can no longer be appreciated. Unlike other monarchs whose art
collections became great national treasures, that of Emperor Rudolf was
lost, sold or destroyed in the years and reigns after his death so that
it cannot be appreciated but it is still easy to criticize him for
accumulating it.
Perhaps the thing about Rudolf II that seems the most odd today,
however, is his fascination with two particular subjects which have been
discredited and those are astrology and alchemy. Now, to be fair, the
Emperor was rather obsessive, particularly in regards to alchemy and I
think it is safe to say allowed the subject to occupy much more of his
time and attention than he should have. Rudolf was positively obsessed
with alchemy, even having a private alchemist laboratory of his own and
spent his life trying in vain to find the elusive “Philosopher’s Stone”.
He even hired two brothers named Edward and Alphonse to, ..no, wait,
never mind (inside joke). Today, of course, people regard astrology and
alchemy as so much superstitious nonsense, completely absurd and
unscientific. I would agree that the Emperor spent rather too much time
on the subject, however, I would push back on criticism of the Emperor
on this front almost more than any other. Today, we view astrology as
basically a swindle for the superstition but, at the time of Rudolf II,
astrology was considered scientific “fact”. Practically every European
government embraced it and every monarch, even the Pope in Rome, had an
official court astrologer.
Astrology is something I point to frequently today in comparison to the
evolutionists or the global warming/climate change phenomenon. We are
told that these things are scientific facts by the scientific community
and yet, once upon a time, the scientific community also said that
astrology was a scientific fact and that one could concoct an elixir
that would turn lead into gold (maybe they never got their Transmutation
Circle just right). My point being that, while I think it is fair to
criticize Rudolf II for going overboard on these subjects and allowing
them to monopolize his time, it is completely unfair to portray him as
some sort of occultist lunatic for doing so. Interest in astrology may
have led some to a better understanding of actual astronomy and we know
as a matter of historical fact that the study of alchemy was a step
along the process of developing scientific understanding and played a
part in the establishment of modern chemistry and medicine as we know
them today.
In the end, it is safe to say that Emperor Rudolf II was not a
successful monarch. He never married or produced legitimate offspring,
imperial power was diminished under his rule, his foreign policy won no
great victory and he provided no lasting stability as evidenced by the
fact that he was ultimately overthrown by his younger brother. His
critics are many and there is much in him that can be validly
criticized. However, I do think some of the criticism of him is unfair
and much of it, even if fair, is certainly unfortunate and does not cast
his critics in a very favorable light either. In regards to the most
serious accusation against him, that he must bear responsibility for the
Thirty Years War is, I think, a considerable overstatement and lays too
much blame on him for a disaster which was caused by the cumulative
policies and events spanning the reigns of a number of German emperors.
He certainly was not one of the best, but he was also far from being the
worst national leader the world has ever seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.