it did. as you may know iran is only ~60 percent persian. azeri turks are 25 percent of iran’s population, all shia (by the time they entered iran the safavids were basically azeri turks, as turkic was the language they spoke). kurds and baloch remained sunni or whatever reason.

If so you’d have people who adopted a particular Protestant creed for religious reasons and others for proto-nationalist reasons

the best predictor of whether a nation turned protestant was long term royal support.

The growth of Protestantism along the north european plain

for what it’s worth, protestantism’ strength in france was in the south, not the north.

Protestantism in Poland, France, Bohemia etc was mostly counter-reformed while Germany was split in half and had the 30 years war, so i think only Holland, England and Scandinavia

the dynamics are somewhat different. let’s go in turn

1) in france the majority never became protestant. a substantial minority did. that proportion declined, but the coup de grace of protestantism in france was the revocation of the edict of nantes. so it wasn’t gradual counter-reform, it was forced expulsion or conversion, analogous to what happened to jews and muslims in spain

2) in poland from what i can gather the majority of lower nobility were non-catholic (the strength of radical groups like unitarians i poland means that we’re talking post-protestant even). but there was a gradual process of counter-reform, and by the 18th century the catholic religion and polish identity became associated, because of conflicts with protestant prussia and orthodox russia, and non-catholicism melted away among ethnic poles.

the assertion i would make is that though there was evidence of nationalistic aspects to the reform, the association of religion and nationality tended to come after a period of intra-national conflict. in the early years of the reformation some of the most radical protestants, unitarians, tended to italian, and they influenced the magyar court in transylvania. international calvinism was notably cosmopolitan, as was the distinct reformed tendency promoted by zwingli. unlike scandinavian luthernaism english protestantism was highly differentiated within itself. the church of england converged on a weird formula of doctrinal calvinism, but continued adherence to many catholic ritual forms (though from what i have gathered 19th century ango-catholicism has accentuated this tendency in comparison to what might have been the norm in the 17th or 18th centuries).

No it’s pure speculation based on looking at old and new maps of various seemingly unrelated things and noticing recurring patterns and wondering if they are in fact related through some indirect mechanism. Obviously on the face of it if something is imposed that would tend to suggest the opposite but even then – what if that same dynasty had tried to impose it on non-Persians? But like i say it’s mostly map patterns so it may be nothing.

“this seems plausible on the face of it, but say more…the model of the ‘magesterial’ protestantism where the church and nationality are coterminous applies well only in scandinavia from what i can gather, though it comes close in england for a period when church of england was relatively ‘broad.’”

I wouldn’t go as far as the magesterial model. I’d only say that individuals who’d developed a national sense of us and them might be inclined to adopt a different religion to “them” if the opportunity arose. If so you’d have people who adopted a particular Protestant creed for religious reasons and others for proto-nationalist reasons. I also think you need to take the effects of the counter-reformation into account as this process didn’t occur under laboratory conditions.

The growth of Protestantism along the north european plain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_European_Plain

from Eastern England to Western Poland and Bohemia didn’t develop without conflict. Protestantism in Poland, France, Bohemia etc was mostly counter-reformed while Germany was split in half and had the 30 years war, so i think only Holland, England and Scandinavia *could* fit the model in which case the fit isn’t that bad – although stull loose.

do you know much about the history of how the safavids imposed shia islam on iran? e.g., non-persian (turkic speaking) elites imported arab clerics to help in the transformation of the sunni persian masses. can you elaborate your model in light of this. do note that the 25 percent of iranians who are ethnically turkic are all shia. in contrast, the iranian kurds are sunni.

I think this is a factor in the rise of Protestantism in Europe where the religious differences were more of an excuse than a reason e.g. Hussites in Bohemia. To a large extent i think the early Protestant churchs in Europe – to the followers if not the leaders – were first and foremost *national* churchs.

this seems plausible on the face of it, but say more. to give some specific examples, calvinism really did not become a national church in that a substantial majority of the population of a given national-ethic group embraced it in manner analogous to lutheranism in sweden. e.g., even a minority of dutch in the netherlands remained catholic, while the flemmish never became protestant (granted, many dutch protestants were refugees from the southern part of the low countries). we all know about the french protestants in france, but there remained french catholics in switzerland (as opposed to geneva). in scotland the calvinists became the state church, but substantial catholic and non-conformist (i guess including those part of the church of england) remain. IOW, the model of the ‘magesterial’ protestantism where the church and nationality are coterminous applies well only in scandinavia from what i can gather, though it comes close in england for a period when church of england was relatively ‘broad.’

I think there’s an indirect aspect to it though. If a people have a particularly strong sense of historical identity and an opportunity arises to reinforce that identity through some other means they are more likely to take it. I think this is a factor in the rise of Protestantism in Europe where the religious differences were more of an excuse than a reason e.g. Hussites in Bohemia. To a large extent i think the early Protestant churchs in Europe – to the followers if not the leaders – were first and foremost *national* churchs.