The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe

By 1683, Louis XIV had moved his court to Versailles; William Penn had founded the city of Philadelphia; the first measurements of the speed of light had been made, and ice cream had become a popular treat in Paris. But while the dodo bird had become extinct, religious conflicts of the kind that had flourished throughout the Middle Ages were alive and well from Constantinople through the Balkans and to within a few days' ride of the Hapbsburg capital of Vienna, as Andrew Wheatcroft recounts in this history of the final great conflict that marked the beginning of the end to the Ottoman ambitions to conquer Western Europe.Wheatcroft knows his Hapsburg and his Ottoman history, so perhaps it was only a matter of time before he began to focus more explicitly on the centuries of conflict between these two ruling houses, which reached a climax first in the early 16th century when Suleiman reached the gates of Vienna and again in the late 17th century, when a later Ottoman sultan's troops laid siege to the Hapsburg capital. Focusing on the latter conflict, Wheatcroft has broader agenda in mind, however: he wants to prove that these military conflicts form the roots of the ongoing tension between Turkey and western Europe (explaining why Europe has been so reluctant to admit Turkey to the European Union.) Alas, the broader a point Wheatcroft tries to make and the further afield he stretches from the book's central focus -- the events leading up to and surrounding the siege of Vienna in 1683 -- the more the book falls short. It certainly doesn't begin to convince me that history alone is responsible for current European attitudes to Turkey, as he seems to argue.When it's good, this is a very good book indeed. Wheatcroft captures the flavor of the Ottoman Empire's systematic preparations for war, carefully and colorfully distinguishing between all the various types of military forces upon whom the sultan and vizier could call. Particularly intriguing are the Tartars, whose warrior society Wheatcroft describes vividly. In the author's eyes, these troops were partly responsible for the Ottoman's biggest weapon, fear itself: "Implacable in their savagery, recklessly disregarding any danger, tireless and bold, the peasants of the west named them the devil's horsemen." He does a skillful job of comparing and contrasting the two empires and their military strategies. He even manages that rare feat in military history (when the reader almost always knows who won the battle): he creates an air of suspense surround the siege itself that was so great that while I was reading about the relentless Ottoman efforts to break the city walls and I heard the first clap of thunder from an approaching storm, I nearly hit the ceiling in alarm. It was as if one of the Ottoman cannons had somehow sounded three centuries later a continent away... It's hard to write a good military history, both maintaining the level of suspense and not becoming bogged down in technicalities or details of manoeuvers of interest only to military strategists or those who still like re-enacting battles with their toy soldiers, but Wheatcroft succeeds at this as well as he does conveying a broader sense of why this particular conflict was such a critical turning point.Unfortunately, he doesn't stop there. He's trying to make bigger and broader points about fear as a weapon of war that are probably valid, but probably also deserve a book of their own -- a different book. There isn't enough evidence included in this book to support Wheatcroft's broader point about fear as an element in the contemporary relationship between Turkey and western Europe (although he certainly proves that fear was a key ingredient in the historical relationship.) That, too, is a different topic and one that can probably be better dealt with in another kind of book.The book's other major flaw is that Wheatcroft drags out his narrative after the siege of Vienna is lifted by troops including the legendary Polish king, Jan Sobieski and Prince Eugene of Savoy, the only military strategist to be revered by Napoleon. It covers another century of battles and Hapsburg reconquests, all of which could have been elegantly summarized in a kind of postscript along with the fate of the Hapsburg monarchy, Sobieski and the Poles and Prince Eugene.Still, this is a well-written and thoroughly researched history of the events surrounding the siege, and stands on its own as a valuable addition to the existing writings on the subject, one that is likely to be readily accessible even to those unfamiliar with the timeframe or the main players. As such, it's highly recommended to any history buff hoping to learn more about the Ottomans, Hapbsburgs and Balkans. Anyone looking for a quick and even more readable history of the Ottomans themselves should look at Jason Goodwin's  Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire . Unfortunately, Wheatcroft's book about the Hapsburgs themselves is an oblique and thematic look at the dynasty that is also a rather dry read.

I believe the author is trying to objectively inform the reader of the events that took place in 1683 regarding the Ottoman siege of Vienna, as well as the subsequent Reconquest of Hungary and how the West-East relations of those countries, as well as other countries, were affected in the years that followed. The author accomplishes this by giving facts and other information that puts the Ottomans and the Habsburgs in both good and bad light; Wheatcroft tells of the good leadership of the Habsburgs, the fighting spirit of the Ottomans, and the carnage that both sides unleash on each other through the bitter fighting from Vienna to Hungary. I did not sense an obvious bias toward one side or the other. The narrative he gives of the events that took place in Eastern Europe from the late 17th century to the early 18th century is very compelling in that I can more fully understand both camps and what their objectives were in the struggle.In terms of the major points of the book, I would say the main battles form a good structure. Wheatcroft gives background detail of a couple centuries leading up to 1683, but I believe that information is just supportive of the body of the book. Therefore, the first major point in this book is the siege of Vienna in 1683. Here, he gives a vivid account of the Habsburgs being `woefully unprepared for the siege,' the Ottoman preparations (for the campaign was kept a secret for a time) and lengthy march to Vienna; once there, he tells of the Ottomans digging their trenches before the walls of Vienna, while barrages of Habsburg musket fire rained down on them. I found it interesting that trenches were dug, and that sometimes the Ottoman diggers and sappers would bump into Habsburg diggers coming from the opposite direction. It's kind of an odd predicament because they wouldn't have much space in which to fight each other down there. Also, the notion of plague is interesting and important; it hit both armies. This section ends, of course, with the Ottomans being repelled by the coalition forces composed of many from all across Europe. The key point to this repulsion was the arrival of the combined relieving forces of the Duke of Lorraine and the King of Poland at the end of August 1683.I am considering the second point in this book to be the collective action of Reconquest in Hungary (the multiple skirmishes and battles that took place after 1683-4). Once the Allies drove the Ottomans from Vienna, there was a renewed fighting spirit, and the possibility for retaking lands conquered since 1453 seemed feasible to the allies. The fighting during this Reconquest was back-and-forth, with both sides killing each other and not really gaining anything from it. Such confrontations took place at Esztergom, Barkan, Buda, and Nove Zamky. An interesting part of the Ottoman retreat from Vienna was the failure of and subsequent execution of Kara Mustafa. The account of his death was intriguing and terrible, but that's how the Ottomans operated in terms of the conduct of war: the Grand Vizier failed, and so he was to suffer for it. The outcome of the Reconquest that is generally accepted in history is that even though the Habsburgs didn't really gain back all of the territory they lost to the Turks since 1453, they did secure their borders with the creation of fortresses and other defenses on the Eastern frontier. Another factor that helped this along was the fact that Ottoman pressure was taken off the Habsburgs because of the Russians to the north and the Venetians wreaking havoc along the Adriatic and Aegean.In terms of the book's strengths and weaknesses, I would say that Wheatcroft did a good job of implementing information from many different sources to help get his point across to the reader. I get into a reading passage if the material is straight out of a memoir or some firsthand account of an event; this is because it makes the event more real in my mind, and more believable and relatable. However, I think Wheatcroft could have been a little more careful with the chronology of events. Even though some background information was given and he jumped around here and there, he would start talking about one thing and then it would lead into another thing that was in a different time than the first thing he mentioned; I understand that mentioning things in support of other things warrants the author to put them side-by-side in the text, but trying to keep things straight was a little difficult at times. For example, the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1529 was alluded to several times, as was the taking of Constantinople in 1453; these events and their dates were inserted right alongside events in the current state of things (the 1680s). Overall, though, I feel that the narrative was strong and was pieced together well enough.In terms of the quality of writing and the book's organization, I think Wheatcroft did a fine job. Other than the aforementioned minor issue I had with different dates and events put together in the text, the author succeeded in piecing together a narrative that led the reader through the events in chronological order, giving proper supplemental information where appropriate. The flow of the narrative was easy and readable; I didn't have to strain at all to get through any passages, in terms of both syntax/grammar and stringing together the historical events. Some of the words, I noticed, were spelled differently than how they should be; this is part of the cultural aspect of the accounts and information about the events. From my perspective, I think the best feature of this book was that it wasn't a dry read; I was engaged in the material and caught myself thinking of how it might link to other parts of history, such as where the events line up on the timeline with things going on in Western Europe or in the colonies. This is important to do as a reader, especially in my case, because it allows me to think critically and form a mental note of the relativity of events going on in the world at the same time.

I agree with many other reviewers that this book is a tad disappointing. Maps are hugely important in explaining military and geopolitical strategy, this book has few maps and they verge on the useless. The book has many b&w photos but these are not referenced to the text and it is a pity they are not in colour particularly bearing in mind the book is relatively expensive. It reads in parts like a novel , and is repetitive. The opening focuses solely on Ottoman history with scant Hapsburg coverage, this is a major flaw in not helping the reader understand why the Siege of Vienna and its defence was a very important historical event. It does not explain with quoted research evidence , why the Ottomans advanced . It does not really explain with referenced evidence the strategic and tactical objectives of the belligerents. Overall a pretty frustrating read .

Overwhelmed with too much detail. Congratulations due on mentioning that Jan III Sobieski, King of Poland had arrived and took command of the combined forces at the Battle of Vienna in 1683. Not exactly sure the Poles got their recognition for the critical victory over the Ottomans, which preserved Europe as a Christian entity.The Vatican museum still displays the huge painting by Jan Matejko in a hall called The Sala Sobieski. It was painted in 1883 to celebrate the second centenary and was a gift from the Polish Government to Pope Leo XIII. It depicts Sobieski at the head of his famous Hussars with his young son at his side and other coalition forces at their sides.Maybe the many residents of the Vatican have appreciated the many efforts of Poles fighting non-Christian forces more than some writers and academics in their propaganda fuelled countries.

Andrew Wheatcroft's history of the Great Siege of Vienna in 1683 is a great account of one of the key moments of conflict between Christianity and Islam in Europe.As with  Empires of the Sea: The Final Battle for the Mediterranean, 1521-1580 , which concentrates on an earlier period than this book, it shows how much of Europe's history was shaped by this conflict without lapsing into simplistic stereotypes about one side being the good guys or any inevitable clash of civilisations. Indeed, Wheatcroft is particularly good on the way in which myths were deliberately created in order to suit the political interests of those in power and how the past was reshaped to suit contemporary political needs.Though focused in the events in 1683, Wheatcroft gives the reader plenty of background and post-siege context, ranging over several centuries in total in this very readable narrative history.The maps, alas, are not really up to guiding the reader through the text and regular recourse to an atlas or online maps is required to fully understand the importance of geography or indeed the layout of fortifications in shaping events.That aside, this book is a great way to learn more about one of the key battles in Europe's history, being both informative and enjoyable. Empires of the Sea: The Final Battle for the Mediterranean, 1521-1580

I loved this book and one of the best aspects is that Andrew Wheatcroft manages to take you into the Ottoman camps and palaces and while you are there you feel profound sympathy for the Ottoman perspective and the Turkish heroes. He then takes you back to the beleaguered Christians and quite naturally the readers perspective swaps over and the Habsburgs and Poles become the heroes. This is good writing and the very best way of presenting history.One of the lasting images that comes from the retelling of this dramatic story is the valiant charge by Jan Sobieski and his Polish Cavalry to relieve Vienna from the hoards of Ottomans who were at the point of taking the city. It does not take great insight to match this up with the charge of King Theoden to relieve Minas Tirith in Lord of the Rings and undoubtedly this was Tolkein's inspiration. The difference of course is that the Janissaries were not Orcs and Kara Mustafa was not (for all his failings) the Witch-king of Angmar.The Enemy at the Gate left me wanting to know more about Sobieski and the link with the fictional Theoden. I made the mistake of using Google to try and satisfy that thirst for knowledge. It turns out that an awful lot of fairly unpleasant people have made this same link - but have found it more difficult to separate fact from fiction. Google led me to Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist web sites. They seem to have adopted poor Sobieski as one of their own. I am sure he is turning in his grave.

As I'm writing this the end of 2009 is approaching, and looking back upon the (many) history books I've read this year, this one ranks among the best. Not a few of those history books dealt with diverse aspects and periods of what I'd loosely describe as 'the East' (Judith Herrin's 'Byzantium', Roger Crowley's 'Constantinople, the last great siege' and 'Empires of the sea', Jason Goodwin's 'Lords of the Horizons', all of them fine books), and they have only increased my interest in the subject.Wheatcroft's subject is the siege of Vienna in 1683 by the troops of Sultan Mehmed IV under the command of his Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa, a pivotal event in the struggle between the Habsburg (Austrian) empire and the Ottoman empire (a struggle that went on for centuries), and Wheatcroft writes this account not only with a thorough knowledge of the subject but - as importantly perhaps - with great enthusiasm. His own interest in the subject, one might safely even speak of fascination, is evident on every page and like a virus affects the reader.The story of the siege in itself is truly absorbing stuff, but what lifts this book above the level of a 'mere account' ('first this happened and then that happened') are the clear insights Wheatcroft gives in the machinations and mechanisms behind the siege, and the way in which he treats it not just as a major confrontation isolated in time but situated in a long chain of events building up to that particular year, and reverberating for decades afterwards. In doing so, he also dispels many myths and prejudices (such as 'the evil Turk') that even today are still current. Therein, for me, lies the great value of this book because the past always begets the present, and the better we understand the past the better we are equipped to deal with today's challenges.In a word: a masterpiece!