The Habsburg Empire under Siege: Ottoman Expansion and Hungarian Revolt in the Age of Grand Vizier Ahmed Köprülü (1661–76), by Georg B. Michels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a fascinating and deeply researched narrative account of Ottoman–Habsburg conflict during the 1660s and 1670s, a period that has been overshadowed by the famous siege of Vienna in 1683, the failure of which led to a sixteen-year war that was catastrophic for the Ottomans, resulting in the loss of swathes of eastern European territory and concluding with the humiliating Treaty of Karlowitz. The prior two decades, by contrast, were characterised by persistent skirmishes along the frontier as the pashas of Ottoman Hungary attempted to expand the lands under their jurisdiction, and by Ottoman support for rebels in Habsburg Hungary. This support made rebel activity a persistent problem for the Habsburgs, including two major rebellions in 1670 and 1672 that saw the Habsburg army suffer significant defeats, but was never sufficient to secure the permanent secession of these regions to the Ottoman Empire. The author, Georg Michels, makes a compelling case that Habsburg legitimacy and military power in Hungary were so weak during this period that, had the Ottomans invaded as the rebels hoped, Habsburg authority would probably have crumbled and the Ottomans secured an easy victory. In his account, the Habsburgs were only saved by the facts that the Ottoman army was tied up in the war with Poland for far longer than Grand Vizier Ahmed Köprülü had hoped, and that their eventual victory there was quickly followed by the vizier’s death and his replacement by the less bellicose Kara Mustafa Pasha.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".