Andrew Wheatcroft

In attempting to do two things, give a more detailed look at selected particulars of Ottoman history and engage in moral judgment, Andrew Wheatcroft is successful at the first but a failure at the second. His glimpses of selected historical events, such as the fall of Constantinople and the dissolution of the Janissaries, provide thorough surveys of the turning points in the Ottoman Empire that do well in the accompaniment of more wide ranging histories of the Empire. Read this volume show more alongside Kinross, and the reader will learn a lot.

But the attempts at moralizing fizzle into irrelevancy. It is a quarter of a century now since Wheatcroft wrote his book. And, for that time it was written, the early 1990s, the hypocrisy of the West as judged against other cultures, was much in vogue--as it still is. But Wheatcroft was faced with a bit of a dilemma. How to fit the Ottoman Turks into that narrative. How to sympathize? How to appreciate? He fails because, instead of appreciating, he becomes ingratiating.

Two examples. First, the role of women. He is at some pains to show that the treatment of Ottoman women was not so bad as the West portrayed in what Wheatcroft thinks was propaganda and prejudice. So he introduces the writing of Western women visiting the Empire to prove his point. Those Western women find much appealing and even superior, they claim, in Ottoman institutions that give women freedom at home and in the street (the latter through the anonymity of dress). All of which brings up the question: if Ottoman women were so much freer than Western women, then we should certainly be able to see examples of Ottoman women visiting the West and writing of such. Where is the Ottoman counterpart of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu upon whom Wheatcroft so relies? Perhaps there is a counterpart. But I don't know it from reading this book. Wheatcroft was obligated to show us the same emancipated Ottoman woman free to comment and compare the Empire to the West.

The second example is sexuality. You can almost see Wheatcroft attempting to touch all the bases of hypocrisy without getting himself in trouble. But alas for the author so concentrated on moral hypocrisy, the passage of time often is not kind. Thus when once again explaining Western hypocrisy, this time regarding homosexuality, Wheatcroft engages in negative hypocrisy. That is, he believes both the Ottomans and the West were morally undermined by sexual perversion of an equal nature. Some twenty-five years later? Mr. Wheatcroft, meet LGBTQ.

This is the danger in moralizing history. Just describe and explain. That works well enough. Even compare. That works well, too. But to rely on comparing only morals simply means time and shifting attitudes will date your arguments and weaken them. Wheatcroft wants sympathy for the Ottomans and national redemption for the Turks. He should have let his historical narratives either make the case or not. Special pleading, here, weakened it, instead. Kinross was much more clever in his historical argumentation: he simply used narrative scissors to advance his preferred storyline. And because of that, Kinross' book on the Ottomans continues to be accepted and read. Wheatcroft, unfortunately, left his volume too much set in the attitudes of the early 1990s. It has become a period piece whose interpretations seem too much trapped by the fashion of his times. show less

This is a captivating book that presents history in a style reminiscent of an adventure novel. The seventeenth-century struggle between the "East" and the "West" offers a gripping story. The author's thoughtful presentation helps one gain a better understanding of the Ottomans and Habsburgs.

The Enemy at the Gates is the retelling of the dramatic confrontation of the Ottoman Turks and the Habsburg Empire at Vienna in 1683. The author tells us that he wants to be objective, but if anything, he appears to be more enamored of the Turks than of the Christian powers that ultimately assembled to turn them back. Nevertheless, despite his efforts to portray the Turks as more organized and perhaps more civilized, one cannot read about the events described without realizing the Ottomans show more were clearly the aggressors.

The Turks first laid siege to Vienna in 1529 when they were led by Sultan Suleiman I (“the Magnificent”), but they were defeated as much by the weather as by the Austrians. Nevertheless, they managed to conquer Hungary and most of the Balkan peninsula in that campaign. For the next 154 years, they persistently attempted to extend the boundaries of their empire into central Europe, only to be opposed with middling success by the Habsburg Empire. The constant pressure from the continual raiding instilled in the Christian inhabitants of the boundary lands a persistent fear of being killed or enslaved.

It was standard operating procedure for the Ottomans to conduct military operations against Christian Europe nearly every year as soon as the weather permitted. By 1683, the Turks had extended their territory into the Balkans as far as Belgrade, and the extremely ambitious and aggressive Kara Mustafa had become Grand Vizier. Wheatcroft vividly describes Mustafa’s raising of a large army that set off from Constantinople to the northwest in the spring of 1683. The army’s goal was known to only a very few select intimates of the Sultan, Mehmed IV. In fact, it is not clear just when the decision was made to assault Vienna rather than some easier targets.

Wheatcroft characterizes the struggle as only incidentally one between Islam and Christendom, with the principal aim territory along with the right to claim the legacy of the Roman Empire. Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, assumed the legacy belonged to the Habsburgs, but Mehmed IV also claimed to be the successor to the Roman Caesars by virtue of his family’s conquest of Constantinople.

The Ottomans were formidable warriors who had little respect for their opponents. They were also experts a siege warfare, the principle technique of which was to dig tunnels under the fortifications of the enemy and set off large explosive charges, then rush through the breaches thus created and slaughter the defenders. Nonetheless, the Habsburgs had learned a great deal about fighting pitched battles while they opposed Protestants in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). They hadn’t learned much about forging alliances, however, and it took them several months to obtain help from other Christian states, notably Poland and Bavaria. Both sides were near exhaustion by the time the (Polish) cavalry arrived, and in one climactic charge by mounted lancers (hussars), drove the unprepared Ottomans from the field.

Wheatcroft’s description of the plight of the Viennese defenders, (surrounded, near starvation, and listening for the sound of sappers digging under their fortifications), is compelling. Their fear and dread is a major theme of the book. Also arresting are his descriptions of the Tartar light cavalry and the Polish Hussars.

The final chapters of the book sketch in broad strokes the Habsburgs’ reconquest of most of the Balkans.

Evaluation: This is a well written book and a fine introduction to the history of late 17th century Southeast Europe.

(JAB) show less

Enemy at the Gate is a narrative history of the second siege of Vienna in 1683. The siege marked the high watermark of Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Ottoman surge had rarely been stopped and with vastly superior manpower and readiness to die for their cause, the Ottomans were often victorious. The Holy Roman Empire led by the Emperor of Austria was their main opposition. The first siege of Vienna had foundered because it was the final point of the long expansion into south east Europe show more by an exhausted military. The second siege was a direct fight for the capital of Catholic Europe and it is the main subject of Andrew Wheatcroft's excellent and excting analysis.

Wheatcroft takes the reader through the events leading up to the siege and the battle itself. The approach may be a little populist for some but it is a riveting read that is not far from being a top novel on the subject. The characters are fully fleshed out, especially the competing generals - Kara Mustafa and the Duke of Lorraine. Mustafa as the Grand Vizier is the starting point for the tale and the line of Viziers that he represents is established to give an understanding of why Mustafa made some of the decisions he did. Wheatcroft shows that Mustafa was extremely ambitious and had an eye on posterity in daring to challenge the Habsburgs at the very centre of their existence.

Wheatcroft's analysis of the Habsburg commanders is just as objective. The logic of the evacuation by the heirless Emperor Leopold is astutely described as at face value it appears to be cowardice but the risk to the Habsburg grand strategy was enormous. What is a little less clear is why the Duke of Lorraine spent so little of the action actually at Vienna, instead Wheatcroft provides evidence of his presence only occasionally during the most critical days of the siege.

The two shock troops of the Ottomans are given especial detail - the Tartars and the Janissaries. Wheatcroft's suggestion that fear of the Turk in western thought is in fact based on fear of the Tartar is backed by ample evidence. The Tartar way of fighting was so far removed from the ceremonial chivalry of Europe as to make these an alien people. In pitched battle there were never enough Tartars but as scouts and raiders Wheatcroft effectively evokes the fear they must have created. The Janissaries are a little less easy to understand from Wheatcroft's narrative but their role as elite troops with a command of technology is clear throughout. The armies of the near east that have threatened Europe for millenia have always been some combination of skills and Wheatcroft's description of what this meant in practice and how the different peoples were tied together is impressive. The cultural implications of the Ottoman style of government are brought to life and they are not just an amorphous mass of enemy.

The Habsburgs and the intricacies of the Holy Roman Empire are left a little to the reader's imagination and in such a large work inevitably some features had to be missed out. What is missing is detail on the debate and diplomacy between the Germanic States and also with the Pope. Innocent XI is a bit of a bystander in the narrative with the reference to the Papacy being only of the vast transfers of cash the Pope made to support the defence of Christendom.

The narrative of the siege itself is absolutely breathtaking stuff. The battle descriptions are gripping and it is exciting to read each phase as the Ottomans gradually pushed through the defences. The graphic descriptions add to the allure of what was clearly a bitterly fought battle. It was a turning point and both sides clearly understood the importance. Wheatcroft describes a couple of missed opportunities by the Ottomans and lays the blame fairly on Kara Mustafa. Mustafa may not have been a military genius but he was not far from taking the greatest city of Eastern Europe when he was ultimately defeated with the arrival of John Sobieski, King of Poland.

It may have been interesting to read of the aftermath for Vienna but Wheatcroft chooses to go with the bigger picture. The continuing rivalry between Habsburg and Ottoman fills the final chapter as the two continue to battle one another back through south east Europe in a fight that only really ends with the dissolution of both Empires in 1918.

Enemy at the Gate is a great description of the events of 1683 and of the later implications. The battle scenes are terrific and even the preparations for war conjure an epic picture. Wheatcroft's own analysis in the coda leaves a little to be desired as he seeks to address what he clearly sees as a popular misconception of the Turkic peoples by the West. The coda does not really follow from what has gone before and does not really add anything to the debate. Coda aside though, Enemy at the Gate is a terrific read for anyone especially those with an interest in the subject as a potent reminder of the turning point that happened at Vienna during some bloody days in the summer of 1683. show less