THe Hinges of Battle: Vienna 1683

[King Henry V]

I saw an interesting programme on Arte yesterday about the Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683. As the relief force of the Holy Alliance under the command of Duke Charles of Lorraine and the Polish King Jan Sobieski charged down from the Kahlenberg to the west of the city and attacked the Turkish troops in the rear, a mine was being under one of the city's bastions. It had already been filled with powder, was walled up, the fuses lit and about to explode when Austrian counter miners managed to get through and cut the fuses. Had they not done so the bastion would have been demolished and Janissaries would have surged through the breach and cut through the surpised and demoralised Austrian defenders, who were already very thinly stretched. It would not have taken very long for the rest of the walls to fall, along with the city itself. The relief force would probably have retreated, all hope of saving Vienna lost. What would have happened then?

[InsaneApache]

No croissants?

http://www.planetfusion.co.uk/~pignut/croissant.html

:book:

[King Henry V]

NO more American tourists getting confused when asking for a cup of coffe in a Viennese coffee house. The first of these places was opened when Turkish coffe beans were found in the encampment. Eacha cafe now has at least 20 different varieties.

[The_Doctor]

I have a theory that this is the battle that Tolkien based the Battle of the Pelinor Fields(the big battle in ROTK) on.

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

-An old enemy.
-A fortified city.
-A big cavalry charge by allies.
At about five o'clock in the afternoon, four cavalry groups, one of them German-Austrian and the other three composed of Polish heavy cavalry (Husaria), 20,000 men in all, led by the Polish king, charged down the hills. Taken from the wikipedia site.

Austria= Gondor (which is supposed to be based on the HRE)
Poland-Lithuanian= Rohan (Hussars=riders of Rohan?)
Ottomans= Mordor (Crusades against muslims=Last Alliance against mordor)
Hungary= Isengard

It is just a theory.

[LeftEyeNine]

I have a theory that this is the battle that Tolkien based the Battle of the Pelinor Fields(the big battle in ROTK) on.

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

-An old enemy.
-A fortified city.
-A big cavalry charge by allies. Taken from the wikipedia site.

Austria= Gondor (which is supposed to be based on the HRE)
Poland-Lithuanian= Rohan (Hussars=riders of Rohan?)
Ottomans= Mordor (Crusades against muslims=Last Alliance against mordor)
Hungary= Isengard

It is just a theory.

I love Tolkien's LORt really much..However I do not want to believe that he could imagine Ottomans as evils. There was a recent news about some journalists claiming that the Orks were the Turks according to Toliken when asked by a reader..

These things only bring the joy of "masturbation" and grow hatred - something done intentionally, not against the evil..

[Gregoshi]

I don't think it necessary that Tolkien would see the Ottomans as evil. If we assume Martinus' theory is correct, the battle could just have been the perfect model of what he envisioned for Pellinor Fields.

[The_Doctor]

I don't think it necessary that Tolkien would see the Ottomans as evil. If we assume Martinus' theory is correct, the battle could just have been the perfect model of what he envisioned for Pellinor Fields.

I agree.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

I am under the impression that Tolkien said (under much pressure) that the White City corresponds to Venice. That would make Greece, Minas Ithil and Asia, Mordor.

[The Wizard]

I was always much under the impression that the Rohirrim were what happened if you crossed Magyar and Norse culture.



~Wiz

[Kagemusha]

I was always much under the impression that the Rohirrim were what happened if you crossed Magyar and Norse culture.



~Wiz

That would be a Finn. ~D
Only joking. ~;)

[Watchman]

I thought us and the Magyars last spoke to each other tens of thousands of years ago, ie. around the time when the ancestors of the Finns wandered westwards from the upper reaches of the Volga and those of the Magyars, well, didn't. Which sort of shows in the two languages too. But anyway.

Even in the odd case the Ottomans would've managed to take Vienna in 1683 I doubt if it would actually have cnaged much. By that point the Ottomans were already badly in decline and behind the times as warfare and most other things went, and even though Vienna would certainly have been an useful forward base occupying it wouldn't have changed the fact that the main mustering and supply zones of the Empire were located in the vicinity of Istanbul - and if you look up a map the bloody Paris is closer to Vienna. What that meant in practice is that even the once hyper-efficient Ottoman army in practice spent the better part of the viable campaign season simply marching that far, and *that* over some very uncooperative gography involving mountains and several major rivers. And the assorted Balkan vassal princes weren't exactly the most reliable allies either.

Or, put short, Vienna was just plain too far from the core regions of the Ottoman Empire for them to effectively wage war there. In the late 1600s most of the major European armies had already gone through the crucible of the Thirty Years War and emerged with a rather nasty set of military methods, strategies and tactics (including a very real option of "perpetual", self-financing war as the TYW in many ways had been), any of which the by then badly ossified Ottomans would have been very hard pressed indeed to counter. Had they gained a bridgehead at Vienna it is somewhat dubious if they'd been able to hold it against any serious attempt to retake it, or do anything particularly useful with it.

If the previous, mid-1500s attempt had succeeded, that one might still have changed something although probably only for the Ottoman themselves (sine the problems of sheer distance, nevermind the problem of the Persians on the other front, would not have gone anywhere); by 1683 it was probably just plain too late and the European headway already too great.

[The Wizard]

The Persians are a negligible factor. In between Shah Ismail and Shah Abbas, the Safavids were weak.



~Wiz

[King Henry V]

Thank you for rescuing the thread from the realms of fantasy land Watchman. ~:cheers:
It is true what you say about the Ottomans already being antiquated. But perhaps instead of benifiting them, it would have helped their allies and arch-enemies of the Hapsburgs, France, to expand into further into Germany. With the Hapsburg Empire effectively greatly reduced, it is unlikely that the War of Spanish Succesion 20 years later would have ended in French defeat, as Austria was one of the principal members of the Grand Alliance. This would have resulted in the union of the French and Spanish crowns and their empires. FRench dominance on the Continent would have lasted much longer, with perhaps the Revolution being delayed.

[Watchman]

True enough. But then again it might as well have triggered something of a crusade to retake the conquered lands too, although in the aftermath of the TYW and the preceding century of religiously fueled inter-European bloodletting religious calls just might've fallen to deaf ears.

'Course, the Poles and Austrians and sundry just might just have turned up again the next year with a better siege train, reduced the city while sufficient Ottoman reinforcements were still negotiating the Balkans, garrisoned it, and forced the Turks to go to the trouble of besieging it yet again... As said before, those distances count.


The Persians are a negligible factor. In between Shah Ismail and Shah Abbas, the Safavids were weak.*shrug* They were still there, they were a constant threat to the Ottoman eastern frontier, and the latter never managed to get rid of them despite repeated and spirited attempts. Plus the buggers were only too happy to coordinate with the Ottomans' European enemies too to keep their mutual foe off balance.

[cegorach]

There is another factor.

The Ottomans at that time HAD TO fight and attack - this was their leaders' way to solve some internal problems - that is why they attacked every single european neighbour.
This policy was rather irrational because for example Polish king tried to get a reasonable peace treaty to attack growing Prussia or/and reclaim recently lost territories in Belorussia and Ukraine ( Kiev, Smolensk), but ottoman rulers insisted that Poland should accept status quo after the war in 1672, which could be seen as only humilating to Poland.
So in fact Sobieski didn't want to, but had to continue fighting after 1673 and even after Vienna and Parkany in 1683 he had no choice but continue fighting.
Generally this irrational acpect led to serious Ottoman defeats, which could be easily avoided. :book:

Regards Cegorach ~:cheers:

[The Wizard]

*shrug* They were still there, they were a constant threat to the Ottoman eastern frontier, and the latter never managed to get rid of them despite repeated and spirited attempts. Plus the buggers were only too happy to coordinate with the Ottomans' European enemies too to keep their mutual foe off balance.

Yes, but any Safavid -- in between Ismail and Abbas -- attack upon Iraq, providing it was succesful in the first place, would quickly crumble under a concerted Ottoman effort to retake their lost territory.

However, if I misinterpret and you mean that a Safavid attack would present immense strategical difficulties on the Ottoman side, then you are right. Vienna would most probably have been impossible to maintain if there was to be a dislodging of Safavid forces from Iraq.

Besides, wasn't the second siege of Vienna during the rule of Shah Abbas?



~Wiz

[Watchman]

Damned if I know, Iranian history isn't my strong suit. But for comparision, Ottoman Turkey, "the Sick Man of Europe", was for a quite extended period of time a major pain in the arse for Russia despite the fact that from around 1600s if not earlier onwards the latter was by far militarily superior (it should be noted that Turkish armies tended to have occasional bright moments and against all odds savage far superior European armies every now and then; Napoleon eventually got stuck besieging some little Turkish fortress too...). Even a weak enemy can be exceedingly troublesome if you can't get rid of him and he constantly diverts your attention and resources from more important issues...