Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T19:20:06.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ottoman Imperialism and the Lutheran Struggle for Recognition in Germany, 1520–1529

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2011

Stephen A. Fischer-Galati
Stephen A. Fischer-Galati
Affiliation:
New York City
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The news of the accession of Suleiman the Magnificent to the throne of the Ottoman Empire in 1520 did not seriously alarm contemporary European rulers for he was generally considered to be a weakling completely devoid of initiative. Surprisingly, however, this supposedly weak son of a strong father (Selim I) took the initiative within one year of becoming Sultan. Eager to strengthen the position of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, Suleiman temporarily abandoned his father's policy of conquest in the Middle East and launched a series of powerful attacks against South Eastern Europe: Belgrade fell in 1521 after it had withstood Turkish attacks for over half a century; Rhodes, the main Christian stronghold in the Eastern Mediterranean, suffered a similar fate the following year. The pressure on Hungary, which was increased after the fall of Belgrade, discouraged the Eastern Europeans from an optimistic view of their future. Indeed, the outlook for Eastern Europe was by no means bright.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 1954 , pp. 46 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. On Suleiman and the effect of his accession on European society see von Hammer, J., Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman (Paris, 1836)Google Scholar, V.lff., Iorga, N., Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches (Gotha, 1908), II, 342ff.Google Scholar, Merriman, R. B., Suleiman, the Magnificent, 1520–1566 (Cambridge, 1944), 31 ff.Google Scholar, Zinkeisen, J. W., Geschichte des Osmanischen Seiches in Europa (Gotha, 1854), II, 611 ff.Google Scholar

2. In 1480 a Turkish army landed in Italy and occupied Otranto for a short while. For the most succinct discussion of this point see: Zinkeisen, , op. cit., II, 452 ff.Google Scholar

3. On Adrian's attitude see: Correspondance de Charles-Quint et d'Adrien VI; ed. L. P. Gaehard (Brussels, 1859), 1ff. On the relations between the papacy and the Turks in general see also Pfeffermann, H., Die Zusammenarbeit der Ren-aissancepäpste mit den Türken (Winterthur, 1946).Google Scholar

4. In 1521 Ferdinand married Anna of Hungary and Louis married Mary of Hapsburg. The marriage contract provided for Ferdinand's succession to the Hungarian throne in the event that Louis would leave no sons. At the same time Charles appointed Ferdinand Staathalter in Germany during his absence; an anticipation of Ferdinand's eventual election as King of the Romans. On these points see: Brandi, K., The Emperor Charles V (New York, 1939), 136–139Google Scholar; Zarek, O., The History of Hungary (London, 1939), 228–229.Google Scholar

5. On Charles' attitude see his correspondence with Ferdinand in Die Korrespondenz Ferdinands I; ed. W. Bauer and E. Lacroix (Wien, 1912), I, 22 ff., as well as his correspondence with his ambassadors in England and France in Correspondence of the Emperor Charles V and his Ambassadors at the Courts of England and France; ed. W. Bradford (London, 1850), 469 ff. The best secondary source on Charles' foreign policy and his imperial ambition is Brandi, , op. cit., 13–17, 114 ff.Google Scholar

6. See especially Charles' letters to Ferdinand of January 16, 1524 and April 15, 1524 in Bauer, and Lacroix, , op. cit., I, 97–98 and 105–108.Google Scholar

7. Correspondent des Kaisers Karl V; ed. K. Lanz (Leipzig, 1844), I, 66 ff. and 168–169.

8. Ferdinand's policy is most clearly revealed in his letters and papers contained in Die Korrespondenz Ferdinands I; ed. W. Bauer and E. Lacroix, vol. I. The most comprehensive, if somewhat antiquated, secondary account may be found in von Bucholtz, F. B., Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinand des Ersten (Wien, 1838), I, 135 ff.Google Scholar

9. See his correspondence in Bauer, and Lacroix, , op.cit., I, 17 ff.Google Scholar

10. For general discussions of German reaction toward the Turks see: Ebermann, R., Die Türkenfurcht (Halle a. S, 1904)Google Scholar and Seholtze, A., Die Orientalisehe Frage in der öffentlichen Meinung des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts (Frankenberg, 1880).Google Scholar

11. Türkenbiechlin (N.P., 1522).

12. Ain anschlag wie man dem Türche widerstand thun mag (N. P., 1522).

13. See, for instance: Aufzug aines Brieffs, wie einer so in der Türekey wohnhaft, seinem Freund in dise Land geschriben (N. P., March 1526); von Kronberg, H., Eyn sendbrieff an Babst Adriarkwm (Wittenberg, 1523).Google Scholar

14. On the position of the diets toward the Turkish question in the early twenties see: Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V; ed. A. Kluckhohn and others (Neuere Keihe, Gotha, 1893), I–IV. (To be subsequently referred to as DEA).

15. The pertinent documents are to be found in DBA, II, 167 ff.

16. DRA, III, 75ff.

17. DRA, III, 218–219, 338 ff.

18. On the pertinent negotiations: DRA, IV, 289 ff., Richter, A., Der Reichstag zu Nürnberg, 1524 (Leipzig, 1888), 112 ff.Google Scholar

19. See Ferdinand's correspondence during this period in Bauer, and Lacroix, , op. cit., I, 84 ffGoogle Scholar, and especially Ferdinand's letters to Charles of June 13, 1524 and October 14, 1524, ibid., 177–178, 226. Also Charles' letter to Ferdinand of April 15, 1524, ibid., I, 105 ff. In addition: Brandi, K., Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation und Gegenreformation (Leipzig, 1942), 127 ff.Google Scholar; Hofmann, K., Die Konzilsfrage auf den deutschen Reichstagen von 1521–1524 (Manheim, 1932), 66ff.Google Scholar, and von Bucholtz, , op. cit., II, 37 ff.Google Scholar

20. By 1524 Charles had not yet comprehended the true significance of the Lutheran revolt. He seemed convinced that upon the successful completion of his Italian campaign he would return to Germany and force the Lutherans back into the Catholic fold. Only in 1520 did the Emperor show any signs of understanding the complexity of the religious situation and of willingness to compromise temporarily with the Lutherans. On these points see Brandi, , Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Beformation und Gegenreformation, 127Google Scholar, 172–173; Förstemann, C. E., Neues Urkundenbuoh zur Geschichte der evangelischen Kirchen-Reformation (Hamburg, 1842), I, 204 ff.Google Scholar; Hofmann, ,, op. cit., 102–104Google Scholar, 111–114; Baumgarten, H., Karl V und die Deutsche Reformation (Halle, 1889), 5 ff.Google Scholar; Brandi, , The Emperor Charles V, 242–243.Google Scholar

21. DRA, III. 242–243; IV, 298–299.

22. Friedensburg, , Der Reichstag zu Speier 1526 (Berlin, 1887), 421 ff.Google Scholar

23. Brandi, , Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation und Gegenreformation, 172–173Google Scholar; Brandi, , The Emperor Charles V, 242–243.Google Scholar

24. Brandi, , Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Beformation und Gegenreformation, 172–173.Google Scholar

25. Charles' letters to Ferdinand of April 26, 1527; August 21, 1527; September 8, 1527 in Bauer, and Lacroix, , op cit., II, 62Google Scholar, 109, 120–122.

26. Brieger, T., Der Speierer Reichstag und die Religiöse Frage der Zeit (Leipzig, 1909), 68ff.Google Scholar; Friedensburg, , op. cit., 409 ff.Google Scholar

27. On Zapolia's activities see his letter to Sigismund of Poland, DRA, VII, 23Google Scholar; his negotiations with the Reichstag, , DRA, VII, 26Google Scholar; and his instructions to his delegate to the Diet of Regensburg, DRA, VII, 976–979.Google Scholar

28. This attitude seems to have been prevalent among the majority of the six princes and fourteen cities which protested against the recess of Speyer in 1529. Letters of Philip of Hesse to Louis of the Palatinate of February 24, 1527 and April 4, 1527, DRA, VII, 16–18, 40–41; Philip of Hesse to the Elector of Saxony, February 24, 1527 and April 20, 1527, DRA, VII, 22–23, 51–52. On the activities of the Elector of Saxony see DRA, VII, 30–31; on the activities and views of the other Lutherans, DRA, VII, 2ff., 937 ff.

29. Urkunden ana Aktenstücke zur Geschichte der Verhältnisse zwischen Oesterreich, Ungarn und der Pforte im XVI und XVII Jahrhunderte; ed. A. von Gévay (Wien, 1838), 1, 2, 1 ff.

30. By 1528 other Lutherans, besides the Landgrave of Hesse and the Elector of Saxony, realized the improbability of a religious reconciliation and were thinking in terms of religious, if not also political independence. Albreeht of Brandenburg, the Markgraves of Brandenburg-Culmbach, the Dukes of Brunswiek-Lüneburg, Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt, and most of the free cities which later joined in the Protestation of Speyer already showed definite tendencies toward establishing themselves as Lutheran political entities. On this point see especially: Janssen, J., History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages (London, 1896), V. 27 ff., 79 ff.Google Scholar

31. The division of Germany into two religious camps seemed clear, by 1529, to at least the six prinees and fourteen cities which “protested” at Speyer. DRA, VII, 481 ff., 1111 ff; Kühn, J., Die Geschichte des Speyrer Beichstags 1529 (Leipzig, 1929), 24Google Scholar, 42–49, 74ff.

32. On the position of the Catholics see DRA, VII, 414 ff., Kühn, , op. cit., 49 ff., 63 ff.Google Scholar