The Swiss Reformation (part 2)

 

Now, I´m not an expert on Swiss history, so maybe this should be taken with a grain of salt or double-checked. But it kind of feels true, somehow...

What was the social base of Swiss Anabaptists? How were the Catholic cantons anti-Habsburg? Didn´t Zwingli and the city of Zürich fear that the Catholic cantons would ally with the Habsburgs?

These are exactly the right follow-up questions, because they expose how Swiss confessional politics cannot be read along simple “progressive vs reactionary” lines. I’ll take your three questions in order and then tie them together.

---

1. The social base of Swiss Anabaptism

Swiss Anabaptism (c. 1525 onward) arose inside the Reformed cities, but its social base was not urban elites.

A. Who became Anabaptist?

Predominantly:

• Rural peasants in Zurich’s hinterland

• Artisans and day laborers

• Smallholders with limited political voice

• Marginal urban workers

Geographically:

• Zurich Oberland

• Emmental (Bernese territory)

• Parts of Thurgau and Aargau

Notably absent:

• City councils

• Major merchants

• Guild leadership

This is crucial.

---

B. Why these groups?

Anabaptism appealed to people who felt:

• The Reformation had been captured by magistrates

• Moral reform was imposed from above

• Infant baptism symbolized coercive social membership

Key Anabaptist commitments:

• Adult baptism

• Voluntary church

• Separation from the world

• Refusal of oaths and military service

These positions directly undermined civic authority.

So Anabaptism became:

a protest against both Catholic sacramentality and Reformed civic discipline.

---

C. Why Swiss Anabaptism stayed pacifist

Unlike later German radicals:

• Swiss Anabaptists rejected rebellion

• Refused violence

• Accepted martyrdom

This reflects:

• Swiss communal traditions

• A theological rejection of coercion

• Disillusionment after the Peasants’ War

They were socially disruptive without being revolutionary.

---

2. How the Catholic cantons were anti-Habsburg

This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Swiss history.

A. Historical memory of Habsburg domination

The Forest Cantons’ founding myth:

• Resistance to Habsburg bailiffs

• Defense of local liberties

• Legendary origins (Tell, etc.)

Historically:

• Habsburgs had been overlords in Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden

• Swiss victories (Morgarten, Sempach) defined identity

So anti-Habsburgism was core to Catholic Swiss identity.

---

B. Political Catholicism ≠ loyalty to the Emperor

The Catholic cantons:

• Opposed papal political control

• Opposed imperial centralization

• Maintained fierce local autonomy

They were:

• Catholic in religion

• Republican in politics

• Anti-imperial in practice

This is late medieval communal Catholicism, not Counter-Reformation absolutism.

---

C. Their foreign alliances were opportunistic

Catholic cantons accepted:

• French pensions

• Papal subsidies

But:

• They avoided permanent subordination

• They rejected Habsburg attempts to reassert authority

• They played powers off against each other

This was defensive realism, not dynastic loyalty.

---

3. Yes—Zurich did fear a Catholic–Habsburg alliance

You’re absolutely right.

A. Zurich’s strategic nightmare

From Zurich’s perspective:

• Catholic cantons surrounded Reformed cities

• Habsburg territories lay nearby (Further Austria)

• Catholic mercenary ties to foreign powers were dangerous

Zwingli feared:

• Catholic cantons would invite Habsburg intervention

• The Confederation would be split and reconquered

This fear was not irrational.

---

B. But it never fully materialized—why?

Because:

1. Catholic cantons valued autonomy over confessional solidarity

2. Habsburgs wanted control, not partnership

3. Foreign domination threatened mercenary independence

So:

• Temporary coordination was possible

• Long-term alliance was not

The Catholic cantons preferred confederal balance to Habsburg protection.

---

4. Why this made the Swiss situation uniquely unstable

You now have three distinct social-political logics:

1. Urban Reformed oligarchies

   • Centralizing, disciplinary, moralizing

2. Rural Catholic communalism

   • Ritual, customary, fiercely autonomous

3. Anabaptist separatism

   • Voluntary, pacifist, anti-coercive

Each saw the others as existential threats:

• Reformed elites feared Catholic foreign alliances

• Catholics feared urban domination

• Anabaptists rejected both as coercive

No side fit modern categories.

---

5. The deeper pattern (connecting to earlier themes)

This triangulation mirrors what we’ve been discussing all along:

• Catholic cantons = medieval participatory republicanism

• Reformed cities = covenantal-juridical republicanism

• Anabaptists = anti-political ecclesiology

Anabaptism is not “left wing Protestantism”; it is post-political Christianity.

---

Bottom line

• Swiss Anabaptists came from marginal rural and artisan strata

• Catholic cantons were anti-Habsburg by identity and interest

• Zurich did fear a Catholic–Habsburg alliance

• That alliance failed because autonomy mattered more than confession

• The Swiss Reformation fractured along three social bases, not two

If you want, we can next:

• Compare Swiss Anabaptists with Mennonites in the Netherlands

• Trace how Anabaptism survives by withdrawal

• Or link this to modern debates about religion and coercion