How far could the historian make use of Sources 1 and 2 together to investigate the
responsibility of Charles V for the outbreak of war in the 1540s?
First, reasoned inferences can be made from the content of Source 1 and linked to historical context to
illustrate how the evidence can be used to investigate the responsibility of Charles V for the outbreak
of war in the 1540s. The source demonstrates the opposition shown by the German States and princes
towards Charles and his orders, and it can be inferred by the claim that “The Princes of Germany have
never liked Charles V” that tensions between the Protestant princes and Charles were long-lasting.
Perhaps the author believes that the outbreak of war was inevitable and both sides were equally
responsible for this; the fact that the author is the Venetian Ambassador could give this claim some
validity as their role required being well aware of the political situation in Germany. This inference
can be supported by specific historical context, for example, as early as 1521, there were divisions
between the princes and Charles as they refused to enforce the Edict of Worms until he had convinced
the pope to call a general council to address their 102 gravamina. Charles’ attempts to do this were
unsuccessful until 1545 due to his preoccupation with the threats from abroad; this makes the source
useful as it is clear that Charles failed to treat the princes in a “deferential and considerate manner”.
Indeed, the fact that the princes and Charles held similar religious values, as they believed that
Germany was being exploited by Rome and the Church required reform, begins to suggest that
Charles was more responsible for the outbreak of war, as he alienated the princes rather than making
them his allies. The source is also useful for the enquiry as it may be inferred from the statement “the
fear that the heresy… should spread” that Charles believed war was his only option after a number of
diets had failed to reconcile Lutheranism and Catholicism, which indicates his responsibility for the
outbreak of war in the 1540s. This inference can be supported by historical context, as the Colloquy of
Regensburg in 1541 proved that no compromise over doctrine could be reached, such as over the
concept of ‘double justification’, and caused Charles to view war as necessary. Thus, in terms of
content, Source 1 is useful for the enquiry as it demonstrates the strength of both the princes’ and
Charles’ faith, and how their failure to reconcile their differences was responsible for the outbreak of
war.
Next, reasoned inferences can be made from the content of Source 2 and linked to historical context to
illustrate how the evidence can be used to investigate the responsibility of Charles V for the outbreak
of war in the 1540s. Like Source 1, the source demonstrates Charles’ concern that heresy was
becoming uncontrollable in his territories and needed to be suppressed, and it may be inferred by the
opinion “all the estates of Germany may lose their faith” that Lutherans were responsible for the
outbreak of war due to their failure to conform to Charles’ orders; the fact that this is the opinion of
Charles himself may limit the use of this inference as he may be blaming “disturbers of the peace” in
order to justify his actions. This inference can still be supported by historical context, however, as
while Charles had refused to accept the Augsburg Confession in 1530, many cities proceeded to
convert to Lutheranism throughout the 1530s and adopted this as their statement of beliefs; it was
even used as the religious statement of the Schmalkaldic League, which suggests that Protestants, as
well as Charles, were responsible for the outbreak of war as they had created a military force that
directly opposed Charles’ commands. This makes the source useful as it clearly reflects the princes’
concerns that an attack on Lutheranism was imminent. The source is also useful as it can be inferred
by the decision to “begin by levying war on Hesse and Saxony” that Charles only declared war due to
the unacceptable behaviour of such Protestant princes.. This can be supported by historical context, as
Philip of Hesse’s bigamy in 1540 was a capital offence and he had also played a key role in
