Ottoman Shock-and-Awe and the Rise of Protestantism: Luther's Reactions to the Ottoman Invasions of the Early Sixteenth Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is Edward Said's model of Orientalism relevant to understanding the Germanlanguage reactions to the conflict between European countries and the Ottoman Empire that occurred in southeastern and central Europe from the late fourteenth to the early twentieth centuries? For over three hundred years during this period, German discussions of Ottoman Turks as representative Orientals and Muslims were conceived not in the context of European hegemony over the Middle East but rather at a time when the military strength of the Ottomans posed an actual threat to southeastern and central Europe. The destruction brought about by the invading army was devastating; cities and villages were pillaged and plundered; fields were burned, women were raped, and captives, including many children, were sold into slavery. As the Ottomans moved closer to central European areas, Germans and other Europeans reacted to these traumatic events with panic and desperation – with Carl Gollner's studies in particular challenging Stephen Fischer-Galati 's statement that there is no panic in after the siege of Vienna (Ottoman Imperialism 161). The period of hostility between the Ottoman Empire and an alliance of armies from the Holy Roman Empire coincided with the continued strife between various factions of religious and political leaders in Germany and in Europe. Particularly important in this context is the rise of the Reformation movement, which brought with it a complex power struggle that involved the ruling dynasty of the Holy Roman Empire, various factions of territorial rulers, other European powers, the pope, and the theologians of the Reformation movement led by Martin Luther.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".