[OneVike]

I will attempt to get to you on the conflict between Phillip IV and Boniface VIII in regard to the reformation, but I will need some proper investigation before I reply, because I really have not given it much thought. As I said in my original introduction of Part I,

I do not mean to diminish the contributions of any of the many individuals or events that will be left out of my series, but in order to be as concise as possible I will inevitably fail to give proper credit to some.

The conflict between Phillip IV and Boniface VIII would be one of those instances that I failed to address even if I do agree it had bearing on the reformation itself. I was pressed by the amount of time one would spend reading the essay and thus the reason for my disclaimer.

As for the followers of Calvin and Zwingli.

My intent of the thesis wast to bring to light what I thought was the major and primary events that led to the Reformation, not the events that would follow the moment when Luther nailed his thesis to the doors of the Wittenberg Church. So it only makes sense that I would not touch upon either Calvin or Zwingli. Although in my closing conclusion I did momentarily mention the brief superficial conversion under Savonarola in Florence of the Italians. However that was more or less to point out the failure of the Italians to grasp the full importance of the Reformation.

History shows that all the nations who embraced the changes of the Reformation wherever they happened and by whomever introduced the changes to their geographic area prospered immensely.

History also proves that the nations like Italy, Spain, Portugal, and others who disregarded the Protestant Reformation changes, ended up being stagnated to the point of being barely above third world country status, especially at today's standards.

( By the way, the stagnation of non-reformation accepting nations is something which very few individuals will even mention, if they even noticed at all.)

[markomalley]

The conflict between Phillip IV and Boniface VIII would be one of those instances that I failed to address even if I do agree it had bearing on the reformation itself.

I gave that example as it is emblematic of the interplay between the papacy and political leaders during the medieval times. The resentment that the temporal rulers had with the papacy likely was as responsible for the success of the reformation as anything else. Having said that, I think that this has a lot to do with the "freethinking" characteristic you assigned as a precursor, but in a different perspective.

History shows that all the nations who embraced the changes of the Reformation wherever they happened and by whomever introduced the changes to their geographic area prospered immensely.

Does it?

I will grant that the US is very prosperous. But I never really noticed much difference between largely Anglican Canada and its largely Catholic province Quebec. Likewise, I don't think that one could easily distinguish between the economic health of the German states that were Protestant and those that remained Catholic.

On the other hand, England (largely Anglican), had a huge amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few in the wake of the industrial revolution, but the condition of the working class could hardly be called "prosperous." On the other hand, Scotland (largely Presbyterian) could hardly be called a prosperous place.

Having said that, I will gladly admit that the Scandinavian states of Norway and Sweden (Lutheran) have always had a high level of prosperity. As has the Netherlands and Switzerland.

But Belgium (Catholic) has also been relatively prosperous. And France (Catholic), while not as prosperous as Germany (mixed), it hasn't really been that much of a slouch, either.

Here's one thing to factor in, as well: you should also take a look at the fact that almost every country that remained Catholic in the wake of the reformation had some sort of anti-clerical revolution in the 18th through early 20th century.

The other factor you should consider is the condition of the working class, which gave rise to labor unions, which were almost immediately infiltrated by Socialist forces. And those forces changed the face of Europe from around the beginning of the last century.

The point I'm getting at is that you would need to do your analysis back in the 18th Century or earlier to make a good comparison.

But I think the oft-repeated axiom, History shows that all the nations who embraced the changes of the Reformation wherever they happened and by whomever introduced the changes to their geographic area prospered immensely, may be a little flawed.