Talk:Christian III of Denmark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not an expert on this subject, but the following sentences sound extreme:
The triumph of so fanatical a reformer as Christian brought about the fall of Catholicism, but the Catholics were still so strong in the council of state that Christian was forced to have recourse to a coup d'état, which he successfully accomplished by means of his German mercenaries (August 12, 1536), an absolutely inexcusable act of violence loudly blamed by Luther himself, and accompanied by the wholesale spoliation of the church. Christian's finances were certainly readjusted thereby, but the ultimate gainers by the confiscation were the nobles, and both education and morality suffered grievously in consequence.
Can we really infer that morality suffered grievously from this activity? And by whose standards are Christian's acts 'absolutely inexcusable'? Besides the point that few things in fact seem to have been inexcusable to early modern kings, is it the business of an encyclopedia to declare whether things are excusable or not?
I haven't tried to rewrite this passage because I don't know enough about the period, but perhaps someone could have a look at it? Alarichall 07:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)