The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe
Product Details | Similar Products | Customer Reviews | Author: Andrew Wheatcroft List Price: $27.50 Our Price: $18.15 You Save: $9.35 (34%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours  |
|
 | Product Details: Hardcover 384 pages Release Date: 28 April 2009 Publisher: Basic Books ISBN: 0465013740 Rating:   Sales Rank: 37814 | | Look for similar books by subject:
| | Customers who bought this item also bought:
| | Customer Reviews: Reach Exceeds Grasp (12 February 2010)In this relatively short book, Wheatcroft attempts to provide an overview of the Hapsburg-Ottoman rivalry, an account of the 1683 siege of Vienna, and some historiographic analysis of Western perceptions of the Turkish threat. Any one of these topics could occupy a fairly thick book and The Enemy at the Gate... suffers from Wheatcroft's ambitious attempt to cover all three topics in a concise book. No topic is covered thoroughtly. The overview of the Hapsburg-Ottoman rivalry is relatively superficial and leaves out a lot. We learn, for example, that the Hapsburgs and the Ottomans were often engaged in conflicts on more than one front. The Ottomans with the Shiite regimes of Iran, the Hapsburgs in Germany and against France. But what impact these conflicts had on Ottoman and Hapsburg resources, and the relative division of forces between southeastern Europe and other fronts is never discussed. There is little sense of how the Hapsburg state and the Ottoman Empire interacted in the general context of the European state system. You would never know, for example, from this account, that Wittelsbach Bavaria, which appears here mainly as a Hapsburg ally against the Ottomans was a French ally during the War of the Spanish Succession and that the Wittelsbachs had designs on becoming Holy Roman Emperor. Similary, the actual description of the siege of Vienna is not very detailed. As other reviewers have commented here, the quality of the maps is relatively poor. We get an idea of Austrian casualties during the siege but never of the Ottoman casualties. This may be due to documentary limitations, but no effort is made to address this crucial point. Wheatcroft, apparently relying on the work of other scholars, does well in laying out the important differences in Hapsburg and Ottoman military organization and performance, but as a campaign history, this account is superficial. Wheatcroft hardly does better in his historiographic analysis of Western perceptions of the Ottomans. He shows that distorted public images of the "Turk" were presented but his discussion and analysis is neither original nor thorough. I have to cavil about the subtitle, "The Battle for Europe." This may have been imposed by the publisher to give this book a more topical flavor but Wheatcroft uses this phrase in text several times. The battle for southeastern Europe, perhaps, but the implication that the successful defense of Vienna precluded Ottoman invasion of the remainder of Europe is undermined by Wheatcroft's own description of the limitations of the Ottoman war effort. Fear And Loathing - Religion in Eastern Europe (30 November 2009)Occasionally I go exploring book-wise. I used to do the same with records back in my rock `n' roll days, and most of the time I found pearls among the commercial swine. So it is with books, I find - some pearls, a few zircons, an occasional lump of coal, a rare bucket of mud. Wheatcroft's book, a recent subject of such mental wanderlust, seems to fit in the zircon-plus category. I was drawn to this book because of my rather persistent interest in the history of Eastern Europe, a history and geographic locale I knew very little about prior to my recent MLA days at UNC-Asheville. I knew, for instance, that a prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire died at the hands of a Serb, precipitating WWI . But why an Austro-Hungarian Empire in the first place? And why kill the heir apparent? Wheatcroft treats both questions, but in the manner of a historian--by digging deeply into the area's history. Essentially,The Enemy At The Gate treats the eons-old conflict between Islam and Christianity by focusing on an Islamic invasion of western Europe in the late 1600s. Here, in a nutshell, is how the story goes: The unobtainable pearl of Eastern Europe had been, for the Ottoman Empire, the conquest of Vienna. Following the Crusades, the Turks and Ottomans had tried several times for this prize, but came away empty-handed. But this time, the Ottoman sultan handed his armies over to one Kara Mustafa. Many of history's warlords have been successful because of their impulsiveness, and Mustafa was of this humor. He had little regard for previous Ottoman failures, and soon his bands swept through Hungary with little resistance to lay a nearly successful siege to Vienna. So nearly successful, in fact, that had not Polish armies come to Vienna's rescue when they did, Vienna would have fallen--and with it western Europe. All history is laden with irony. In this case, the Ottoman siege had so weakened Mustafa's armies that the Poles chased them east with ease, re-took Buda and Pest, and very nearly sent the Turks scampering across the Carpathians with their tails between their legs. Wheatcroft's prose is often rather dry, stuck between academic writing and the best non-fiction, making the book a somewhat dry read. But he's clearly mastered his subject. His depictions of the Turkish janissaries, of the Ottoman sappers, the tactics of their fleet-footed cavalries, is occasionally spell-binding. Less so are his depictions of the plodding Western Europeans, their tactics and leadership. But what comes through to this reader is the brutality of this war. It reminds me all too much of WWII's German Wehrmacht and its brutal fights over the same real estate with equally brutal Soviet masses. But what compelled Wheatcroft to write this book, other than his passion for the subject? Two things come clearly to the fore: First, in pointing out the manner in which both sides were compelled to such brutality by religious zeal, he places his story's import into today's "war on terror," which has been given an ample dose of religiosity of its own. This so-called contemporary war was aggravated now, as then, by a Pope. Second, and in a late aside, Whitcroft assays the Austrian ability to "manage" history to its own purposes. This led to the alienation of minor nationalities, such as that of Serbia, and the alignment of nations that led to the First World War. Wheatcroft's book, despite an often arid writing style, should be read by all armchair historians, as well as by those now wringing their hands over today's Middle East-Eurasian turmoil. An OK read (09 November 2009)The book by Roger Crowley 'Empires of the Sea' is vastly superior in the style , focus, depth and narration than this book. This author tries to cover too many events and a vast geography but mostly he just regurgitates various event in non-linear (time) and staid fashion. Also, unlike Roger Crowley he just cites the contents from the letters instead of weaving the 'contents' of it into a gripping narrative. Fascinating Story of an Important Historical Event (21 October 2009)I must say that when I first bought this book, I didn't know what to expect. The reviews weren't the best and this time in history wasn't one of my favorites. However, when I opened the book and started reading it, I was impressed. The pictures that it painted of this period of time, where very good. The Ottoman Empire of that period was a very dictatorial environment with the Sultan running everything and disobedience resulting in death. And, when they attacked a Christian city, the inhabitants were provided two options prior to the start of the siege - either surrendur or die. At the end of the battles, if the inhabitants did not surrender, the results were truly barbaric. This was the lead in to the campaign that resulted in a near run affair of the siege of a major European city in 1683 - the siege of Vienna. The city was under siege for 2 months - and the book shares the specifics of the bombardment, the Ottoman mining (which they were very good at), the assaults of Ottomans (after mines were exploded taking down some of the city walls), the defense and the potential loss of the city. As the book continued through this section describing these events, I couldn't put it down. I kept wondering what it must have been like to experience this. And, what would have happened to the thousands of people in the city, if the city was taken. The highlight of the book is the arrival of the "cavalry". A joint army of units from Poland, Saxony and other locations arrives in the nick of time, fights a battle with the Ottomans that ends with a successful heroic attack of the Polish Winged Hussars. You can just picture the result as you are reading the book - the hussars attacking with their lances, chasing the Ottomans and routing them. The end of the book is somewhat anti-climatic relating how the Christian armies then attacked and threw the Ottomans out of Buda (Pest), Belgrade and other Balkan cities and states resulting in the elimination of a future threat. As you read this, you can get a sense of why, to this date, there are animosities in that region between the Christians and Muslims what with the barbarism that occurred - beheadings, flayings, impalings, etc. for the poor losers. There was very little mercy towards civilians and prisoners. This is a great book on a fairly unknown period of history that also provides some perspective on why the Christian and Muslim animosities exist. For this reason, I highly recommend this book. Documentation of a historical turning point (20 October 2009)This reviewer had largely ignored late European history in the 17th Century. After the mad fighting in the 30 years war this arm chair reader turned his attendion to the New World. However, I could not be more wrong in my assessment of Europe in the late 1600s by reading this book. This book makes it very clear that the seige of Vienna was a close run affair. Indeed, if the relieving Christian forces had just been a few week later then to this day Vienna would be an Islamic capital. It's doubtful that Christianity would have survived on mainland Europe if Vienna had fallen. The heart of Europe would have been ripe for conquest. I will have to admit that the battle described in this book is a little confusing. But that is one of the few debits. Largely, one can look at this seige as the equal of Grant at Vicksburg. The Ottomans had larger field guns and did a fantastic amount of mining the defenses of Vienna. The books says that at the height of the seige the Ottomans fired off more than one mine a day. Grant did the total of one mine attack at Petersburg and fumbled the excellent results of that explosion. I was also surprised at the Ottoman war machine. "Yours is to command and ours is to obey" is what envelopes the Ottoman empire. Armies, supplies and draft animals are drawn up in perfect harmony. The seige camps are kept clean in accordance with dictates of the Koran. I was impressed. Generally the Ottomans keep a cleaner camp than any Western Army up until the 20th Century. Since the Ottomans keep a cleancamp it means they are spared the disease that rips through any western army. Weirdly, if it had not been for the 30 years war then the Europeans would not have been able to defeat the Ottomans. The Field Artillery arm had been invented. Indeed, the typical Western field gun was not much different than the American Civil War gun of about 180 years later. The musket line had been perfected by the Western armies. So, a strange paradox happens on the battlefield. The western armies are far more fluid in battle but initially slow. The Ottomans are far quicker to strike but far slower after commitment. This allows the Austrian Prince Eugene to break the Ottoman seige with a smaller attacking force. The coda of the book is what is of great interest. By the early 19th Century the Ottomans and Austrians come to a somewhat peaceful coexistence. They are alternately attacked by outside forces. The Ottomans have to tolerate the constant attacks by Russia. The Austrians alternate between the problems with Prussia and later Napoleon. A USA historian observes that the Austrians only won large battles with Prince Eugene over the 300 years of its government. The Ottoman Empire had more constant fighting with its Arab charges and that changed after World War One when Attaturk took the defeated Ottoman Empire and changed it into Turkey, the most wealthy, peaceful, and successful of present Islamic nations. I highly recommend the book. The seige of Vienna in 1683 is a close run affair. It's strange to think that if the Ottomans had struck harder a few weeks prior and had a better commander that all of Europe south of Great Britain would now be an Islamic state. | |
