Professor Cole,
your drawing a parallel between the outcome of democratic elections and the results of military occupation and imperial annexation is nothing short of blasphemous. It is also offensive to Hungarians, who consider the loss of the sovereign medieval Hungarian kingdom and the military occupation of much of Hungary, plus the reduction of much of the rest to war zones, as a disaster with long-ranging political, social, and demographic effects.
As for the facts re Buda. You seem to confuse the exemplary freedom of religion in the Prostestant-dominated Principality of Transylvania, where Ottoman suzerainty guaranteed a certain degree of protection against Habsburg-sponsored counter-Reformation, with the conditions in central Hungary, which was under direct Turkish occupation. Here the Turkish invaders' administration initially gave some support to Calvinists (but not to Lutherans), as that would lessen Catholic/Habsburg influence. Later on, their religious policies can be best described as neutral, mostly tolerating Christian denominations, while not giving extra support to them. That is, outside of the cities, including Buda, which were fist converted top Ottoman cities, and then progressively Muslimised. In Buda, the practice of western Christianity was effectively banned in 1596, when the only church Catholics and Protestans could still use (that is, jointly), was converted into a mosque, and no more Hungarian Christian familes were allowed to move into the city. Which meant that western Christian population dwindled through the 17th century, until the 1686 reconquest.
Professor Cole,
your drawing a parallel between the outcome of democratic elections and the results of military occupation and imperial annexation is nothing short of blasphemous. It is also offensive to Hungarians, who consider the loss of the sovereign medieval Hungarian kingdom and the military occupation of much of Hungary, plus the reduction of much of the rest to war zones, as a disaster with long-ranging political, social, and demographic effects.
As for the facts re Buda. You seem to confuse the exemplary freedom of religion in the Prostestant-dominated Principality of Transylvania, where Ottoman suzerainty guaranteed a certain degree of protection against Habsburg-sponsored counter-Reformation, with the conditions in central Hungary, which was under direct Turkish occupation. Here the Turkish invaders' administration initially gave some support to Calvinists (but not to Lutherans), as that would lessen Catholic/Habsburg influence. Later on, their religious policies can be best described as neutral, mostly tolerating Christian denominations, while not giving extra support to them. That is, outside of the cities, including Buda, which were fist converted top Ottoman cities, and then progressively Muslimised. In Buda, the practice of western Christianity was effectively banned in 1596, when the only church Catholics and Protestans could still use (that is, jointly), was converted into a mosque, and no more Hungarian Christian familes were allowed to move into the city. Which meant that western Christian population dwindled through the 17th century, until the 1686 reconquest.
This is written by one of the best experts on the subject. With a translator you can get an overall picture.
http://budavar.btk.mta.hu/hu/helytortenet/a-torok-kori-buda-1541-1686.html?showall=&start=1