Recent Posts
Japan: Violence and AbleismSeptember 12 2016 - Read more
Is Parenting Really Shared?September 3 2016 - Read more
Turkey’s Attempted Coup: The Lesser of Two EvilsAugust 26 2016 - Read more
Is Wolf-Whistling Really a Hate Crime?August 23 2016 - Read more
Boyish Smirks and Outrageous Insults: Why Boris Johnson Is the Postmodern ProteusAugust 19 2016 - Read more
What If the Ottomans Had Won in 1683?
Posted by: David Gilbertson QPM
Tags: army,Europe,history,islam,ottomans,the east,the west,Vienna,war Posted date:
November 24, 2013 |
13 Comments
Share This
If King Jan III Sobieski of Poland had not arrived in Vienna on 12th September 1683, the dynamics of global power would have been entirely different
As A J P Taylor used to tell his students, “History is what those with power want you to believe has happened, not necessarily what actually happened”.
This is certainly true when the development of Europe and its relations with its eastern neighbours is viewed from the vantage point of the 21st century. Much of what we think we know is actually a blend of propaganda, selective remembrance and downright lies. The true record is a distortion, but we are unaware of this fact and its implications for us all today. Put simply, the attitude of most Europeans to Islam is influenced by a ‘folk-memory’ that has lain in our unconscious like an incubus for at least five centuries. The myth of the bearded and turbaned warrior wielding his scimitar and kidnapping virgin maids for his harem, has now been replaced by the fiction that beyond the shores of Europe the world is entirely peopled by bearded and turbaned warriors armed with explosives and AK47s, who wish us nothing but pain and suffering.
We deal with the world in terms of our understanding of it, but is this view in any sense inevitable? There is a convincing case to be made that the world would have been a completely different place, if just one or two events had taken a different turn. So, come with me back to the 17th century and indulge in a ‘mind game’ – an exercise in counterfactual history.
In 1683 all of the Balkans, together with large parts of Hungary and the Ukraine, formed the western edge of the Ottoman Empire, ruled from Constantinople by Sultan Mehmet IV. These remote regions of eastern Europe were Muslim lands with a mosque in most communities and a legal system based upon Islamic Law. Contrary to common belief, the Ottomans allowed many religious freedoms; Jews, Christians and Copts were allowed to appoint their own priests, build their own places of worship and conduct themselves as they wished, so long as they did not challenge the caliphate. Indeed the Ottoman authorities went to great lengths to protect the Christian and Jewish ‘holy places’ in Jerusalem and Palestine, and regularly arbitrated in disputes.
For tactical and economic reasons, the Ottomans had long wanted to take Vienna and the Austrian lands from the Habsburg Monarchy. In the 1560s, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent had referred to the city as the ‘Red Apple’ of Europe and, in 1682, Sultan Mehmet IV declared war on the House of Habsburg. His Grand Vizier, Kara Mustafa Pasha, marched north through the Balkans from Constantinople with an army of 300,000 and on 14th July 1683 the Ottomans surrounded Vienna and laid siege to what was then the third largest city in Europe. There was a military stalemate until 12th September 1683 when King Jan III Sobieski of Poland arrived with a relief army of 84,000 and engaged Kara Mustafa Pasha in a decisive battle. The siege was lifted, the Ottomans withdrew, and Europe was ‘saved’ for Christendom.
But what might have happened if the Poles had failed to arrive in time? Let us imagine the historical counter-factual.
It is 13th September 1683 and the Ottomans have beaten off a half-hearted attempt by the advance guard of a small Polish army to raise the siege. Vienna has fallen and Kara Mustafa Pasha’s forces have occupied the city. Despatch-riders have set off for Constantinople to announce the victory and to call upon the Sultan to send reinforcements to garrison his new prize. By 1686 Vienna would have started to look like other European cities under Ottoman rule such as Belgrade, with minarets starting to appear and traders from Anatolia and the east establishing new businesses and trading enterprises. Vienna’s strategic position on the Danube would have meant that any aspirations that Hungary might have had to control the main river artery of Europe would have disappeared. By 1700, all of Hungary, most of Austria, the Ukraine and much of Poland and Saxony would have been part of the Ottoman Empire or client states owing allegiance to the Sultan. The reason for this explosion of influence is easy to see. At a time when travel by road was virtually impossible and sea travel dangerous and uncertain, by controlling the Danube as far as Germany, the most important commercial route to the east would have been in Ottoman hands. From that would have flowed great riches and even greater influence. The whole of eastern Europe, from Muscovy to the Rhine would have been in the Sultan’s sphere of control.
Thus by mid-18th century, on either side of a line that might have been drawn between Denmark and Italy, Europe would have been divided between a newly-empowered and immensely-rich Muslim Ottoman Empire to the east and a much diminished western Europe. Driven from Austria, the Habsburg monarchy would have clung on to their outpost in Spain, but there would have been no Austria-Hungary. No threat from the Austrian Habsburgs would have freed the Bourbons from the threat and expense of war, thereby avoiding a revolution in France in 1789. No French Revolution would have meant no Napoleon, who would have remained a junior officer in the artillery, bored and distracted on his native Corsica. No Napoleon would have meant that England could have remained at peace from the 1780s to 1815 and almost certainly able to retain the American colonies. The United States of America would not have developed along the lines that we know it now.
Without the pressure of rivalry with Austria and France, Prussia would never have forced through the unification of Germany in 1871, which would have remained a collection of insignificant hereditary kingdoms. The Tsar of Russia, confronted by a strong and prosperous Ottoman Empire on the western and southern borders would have had to meet the needs of the vast population and deal with social inequality. There would have been no Russian revolution; no great-power rivalry, so no First World War and no Treaty of Versailles. Hitler would have remained a failed architecture student in his home town of Linz, deep in Ottoman Austria, so there would have been no Second World War. There would have been no Holocaust, no State of Israel, and Palestine would have remained little more than a dusty sanjaq in an out of the way part of the Sultan’s vast empire.
It is November 2013. Islam is the religion of more than half of Europe, not by compulsion or force of arms, but simple acceptance. There is a caliphate that stretches from Basra to Berlin with imposing centuries-old mosques in Vienna, Linz, Budapest and Warsaw. Alongside them are soaring Catholic cathedrals and synagogues of surpassing beauty. Religion is part of the life blood of this different Europe, but as something that sustains not divides.
Image from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_miniature
About the author
David Gilbertson QPM
David Gilbertson QPM is the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner to the Metropolitan Police, New Scotland Yard, and the former HM Assistant Inspector of Constabulary at the Home Office.
David Gilbertson QPM is the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner to the Metropolitan Police, New Scotland Yard, and the former HM Assistant Inspector of Constabulary at the Home Office.
13 Comments
David Gilbertson
My Dear Sheikh Farooq,
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The course of European history might have been even more different if Granada had never fallen in 1492 and Muhammad XII had remained on the throne of most of Spain (al Andalusia). If that great seat of learning had been allowed to prosper and grow at a time when religious bigotry in Christendom was hindering intellectual development, who knows what advances there might have been in Mathematics, Astronomy and Science. Perhaps electricity in the 15th century, or radio in the 16th, or powered flight in the 17th? The possibilities are endless and fascinating.
EddieValiant
The time of the Caliphate of Córdoba was a Golden Age for relative tolerance for other religions and progress in science. However, after the 10th century, little tolerance for other religions was left in Andalusia when the Almohads took control. Jews were treated brutally. Many were killed. Progress in science had stopped.
Even before the Almohads reigned Al-Andalus, there were massacres carried out against Jews by Muslims (Córdoba in 1013, Granada in 1066). Therefore, the statement that “if al Andalusia never fell from Muslim Rule the world would have been by far more advanced than we see today” is simply incorrect.
steiner
Yep, just look at the mafia, and how well they treat their hosts!
Why would anyone want to leave that kind of a life, and why fight it ?!
The freedom the mafia gives! and the knowledge that it spreads! why, if the whole world would have been run by the mafia, we wouldn’t have had all these wars. No Napoleon, no Hitler…etc. etc. no Napoleon…
And if the real truth were to be told; the real truth! we would all see that the mafiosi are the best of people. They are the most honest, the most generous, the most freedom loving people this world has ever witnessed. Just look at how well they treat those under their influence…Businesses flourish! They give all kinds of rights to all their community members, as well as pay for much of the entertainment venues, and as long as these people respect them, the mafia is good to them.
Their code of ethics, the way they dress (the best and most expensive of fashion!) they are so ahead of their times! and let’s not forget the buildings they live in, including the architecture as well as the art and the technological advancements they inspire…, these speak mounds to what could have been, had the mafia taken over Italy, or America.
We would be thousands of years ahead in literature, politics, science…etc.
And it’s not too late folks,,,,they still have lots to give us, if we let them…
steiner
Jack Steiner QPM is the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner to the Metropolitan Police, New Naples Yard, and the former HM Assistant Inspector of Constabulary at the Home Office.
steiner
My comment is still awaiting moderation?!!!
I guess honesty is not a valued attribute of the Platform.
you ought to simply note:
The aims of The Platform are evident:
To promote islamic change in Britain through propaganda.
To provide muslim narrative on current affairs and cover up the truth.
To give a voice to young muslims and the wider muslim community by creating a platform for a one sided and biased narrative.
Hey! whatever rings your bell…. but at least be honest as to whose interests you are really looking out for.
Doug M.
No offense, but this is not very good analysis.
“At a time when travel by road was virtually impossible and sea travel dangerous and uncertain, by controlling the Danube as far as Germany, the most important commercial route to the east would have been in Ottoman hands. From that would have flowed great riches and even greater influence.”
— Um. Before 1683, the central and lower Danube — over 1500 miles of it, all the way down to the Black Sea — had already been in Ottoman hands for 150 years. It’s not clear how adding another couple of hundred miles in lower Austria is going to provide “great riches and even greater influence”.
“Driven from Austria, the Habsburg monarchy would have clung on to their outpost in Spain, but there would have been no Austria-Hungary.”
First off, the Hapsburgs would still own Spain, the Spanish Netherlands, Upper Austria, half of Dalmatia, Slovenia, large chunks of Italy, and of course their immense extra-European empire in the New World and the Philippines. So they’d have plenty of resources to continue the war.
Second, the Hapsburg Emperor Leopold showed considerable skill at building and holding together a multi-power coalition — including Venice, Poland, and Russia — against the Ottoman threat. You need to explain why the fall of a single city, however strategically important, would cause all these allies to abandon the fight.
Third, the Ottomans were already badly overextended at Vienna. The empire was already suffering the internal problems that would send it into steady relative decline over the next 200 years. The historic defeat at Vienna led to a series of catastrophes for the Ottomans, from the second battle of Mohacs to the fall of Belgrade and the Russian seizure of Azov. It all ended with the humiliating treaty of Karlowitz, by which the Ottomans lost Hungary, Transylvania, Azov, the Morea, and all the Adriatic north of Montenegro.
Now, a victory at Vienna might have avoided these disasters. On the other hand, the Ottomans would still have been badly overextended and overstrained. It’s very hard to see how this leads them from triumph to triumph. It seems rather more likely they’d end up bogged down in Lower Austria defending their conquest while the Russians, Poles and Venetians carved off pieces around their periphery.
Finally, you need to explain how the Ottoman state manages to keep up with Europe in terms of technology, administration, military organization and finance. By 1683 the Scientific Revolution is already in full swing, and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England is just a generation away. Vienna falling won’t change this. By the late 1700s European states and armies are going to be pulling away, and the Ottomans falling further and further behind. Keep in mind that the Ottomans didn’t win a single major war against a European power after 1683; they managed a couple of draws against the Russians, and one against the Austrians, but otherwise it was an unbroken record of losses. It’s hard to see how gaining a single city is going to alter that deep underlying trend.
“No threat from the Austrian Habsburgs would have freed the Bourbons from the threat and expense of war,”
Prince William of Orange would like a word with you.
The Bourbons were at war pretty much nonstop throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. And while Austria was certainly an important and popular enemy, Bourbon France also fought wars with Spain, Venice, the Netherlands, Bavaria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden and, above all, Britain. So even if Austria is knocked completely out of the game, the Bourbons are going to have plenty of wars. That’s just how they were wired.
Doug M.
David Gilbertson
Doug M,
Everything you say is correct, which is why examining historical counter-factuals is endlessly fascinating – there is always the opportunity to look at this or that event and turn it around to generate a different outcome. I’m not sure I agree with you about the Danube, because taking Vienna and Lower Austria would have meant that the Ottomans, for the first time, would have had control of the vital produce coming-up river towards France and the German states, from Silesia and Saxony, which became increasingly significant in the early 18th century. It’s also my understanding that by the 1680’s Spain had pretty much given up in the Netherlands after a hundred years of rebellion by the Dutch. But if we play the game a bit more, what about Mohacs and Azov going the other way courtesy of defectors from the Western Europe accepting senior positions in the Sultan’s armed force bringing their technology with them? Let’s not forget that Mehmet’s grand admiral in the Mediterranean was actually a French convert to Islam, so anything is possible.
Doug M.
Dear David,
I don’t see how seizing Lower Austria gives the Ottomans either Silesia or Saxony. Why would they even try? Attacking Vienna was right at the bleeding edge of what they could support logistically. The only way they could move another couple of hundred miles further north and west would be by ravaging Austria for loot and forage — which would pretty much nullify the point of capturing it in the first place.
Also, Silesia is drained by the Oder, not the Danube.
As to the Netherlands, I’m speaking of the Spanish Netherlands — what is now today Belgium, more or less. The Hapsburgs inherited all the Low Countries together in the early 1500s, but in 1560 the northern part — what is now “the Netherlands” — broke away. But they hung on to the southern half until 1815.
Generals and admirals were “turning Turk” as late as the 19th century — Josef Bem, the second best general of the Hungarian War of Independence, did it in 1849. And technology transfer through defectors did happen; the walls of Constantinople were battered down by guns maintained and aimed by a Hungarian master gunner. But the Ottomans nevertheless fell steadily behind from the early 1700s onward, and the occasional new weapon or tactic from a defector was not nearly enough to offset this very broad long-term trend.
Finally, note that even victorious Ottomans will still have to deal with Prince Eugene of Savoy (who defeated them repeatedly) and, a bit later, Peter the Great (who fought them to one victory and one draw, but with both wars draining immense amounts of limited Ottoman resources and causing them to lose ground elsewhere).
cheers,
Doug M.
Dan
An interesting analysis, but I find some parts biased against my Catholic religion and ignorant of some historical facts. Just some comments on bits of your article:
“Alongside them are soaring Catholic cathedrals and synagogues of surpassing beauty.” – as far as I know before the Ottoman reforms there were severe restrictions on church buildings throughout the Empire (For instance Greek Orthodox churches were not allowed to be built with domes). I doubt the Ottomans would allow cathedrals on a scale such as Notre Dame or St Peter’s Basilica to remain as churches. It was the policy of the ottomans to convert the largest/most beautiful church in a newly conquered city (e.g. Matthias Church in Budapest, Hagia Sophia in Istanbul); why do you see no large, opulent cathedrals in ex-Ottoman cities such as Sofia and Belgrade dating back from Ottoman or pre-Ottoman times? I would have no doubt if the Ottomans had captured Rome the first thing they would have done was to convert St Peter’s Basilica, one of the Catholicism’s holiest Churches, into a mosque. Just like they did with Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
“the most important commercial route to the east would have been in Ottoman hands.” Vienna was indeed an important trading post in the 15th or 16th century, but as far as I know after the discovery of the New World and trade routes bypassing the Ottoman Empire it had lost some of its importance. So I’m not sure whether taking Vienna would have enriched the Ottoman Empire greatly anyway; on the other hand, taking Venice or Florence would have done so. And Venice was still a major power during that time, I doubt that it would fall too easily from an Ottoman attack.
I would also agree that the Ottoman Empire was already overstretched during that time, and by that time the Europeans had caught up with them in science/technology (remember that they were considered to have stopped being a threat to Europe after the second siege of Vienna). The Europeans by that time had become more open to reforms and scientific progress (see Maria Theresa, Peter the Great) while the Ottomans were becoming more conservative and insistent on their old ways (remember the printing press was first introduced in their capital in the 15th century but books in Turkish/Arabic were not printed until the late 18th century) – which I believe ultimately contributed to the downfall of their Empire (remember the Industrial Revolution came late in the Ottoman Empire, compared to their Christian European counterparts, e.g. Austria-Hungary, Prussia). So I’m not sure if I entirely agree with your statement that the taking of Vienna would have re-strengthened the Empire greatly.
Also, remember that the Holy League formation showed the desire of the Christians to defend their lands; Venice, the Habsburgs and Poland were not naturally allies (in fact, after the Ottomans had been driven out of Europe they went back to their usual rivalries) yet they managed to form an alliance to drive out the Turks from Central Europe. I personally do not think that the outcome of the battle would have in any way diminished the Christian resistance to or will to resist Ottoman expansion to central/Western Europe.
The one thing I agree though is that probably the Ottomans were not as brutal/intolerant as commonly portrayed in Western circles; after all the Balkan peoples still remain predominantly Christian despite having endured centuries of Ottoman occupation. Still, I am of the opinion that an Ottoman domination of Europe would have stilted cultural and artistic development significantly; I can hardly imagine Classical music, Baroque churches and Renaissance art flourishing in an Ottoman-controlled Europe. Just my 2c
Doug M.
You’re right about the churches, Dan. The Ottomans did tolerate other religions, but they did not allow them an equal position with Islam. The different religious groups lived together in peace and even amity, but there was neither formal nor informal equality. And very large churches and cathedrals were not allowed; pre-existing ones were generally converted to mosques.
It’s true that the brutality of the Ottomans has been greatly exaggerated by Balkan nationalists and some historians. They were in many ways more tolerant than their European contemporaries, and they had many other admirable qualities. But there’s just no way that an Ottoman victory in 1683 would have led to an Ottoman super-empire dominating everything east of “a line from Denmark to Italy”. They couldn’t pull that off even in the 1500s, when they were stronger and Europe was weaker.
Doug M.
Pieter
Showing Islam is a form of state.
Mr L. Augh
If this “mind game” is supposed to be a proper case of cause and effect then I can only snicker.
No wonder the police is in shambles with great thinkers like this man in their midst.
What a desert of intelligence……
David Gilbertson
Mr Laugh,
Thank you for your mature analysis. Incidentally, the word is ‘snigger’ not ‘snicker’. Best of luck with your ‘O’ levels.
The Caliphate never ended, it is but a few years of suppression in comparison to prior years in history.
The world is but reshaping as it always has, the difference today is exactly the propaganda that has been written into western history books.
It is amazing what still exists in the not so very old records of history. The world faces a time of pluck and pull for wealth and power. Without the many wars, if al Andalusia never fell from Muslim Rule the world would have been by far more advanced than we see today. We are more than a thousand odd years behind in scientific, economic and social advancement.
Such a pity, if only we could restart that wheel of advancing mankind forward in terms of knowledge.
Sadly today we withhold much knowledge from the rest of the world due to mistrust because of what we have learned from the past.
Sheik Faarooq al Mohammedi
UMN Intl Rep.
THE UNITED MUSLIM NATIONS INTERNATIONAL