On History And Timing

We've written posts on both Ottoman sieges of Vienna, the first in 1529 and the second in 1683, but what I neglected was their relative historical significance.  If Vienna had fallen in the first siege there was a significant chance that the Ottomans would have advanced further into central Europe perhaps sending the course of history into a new channel, while the city's fall in 1683 would have been an endpoint for the Ottomans, rather than a signal for further conquest.

In 1529 the Ottomans were at the peak of their powers under Suleiman the Magnificent.  After the fall of Constantinople in 1453 they had proceeded to solidify their hold on the Balkans.  Early in the 16th century they turned their attention to the Middle East, quickly conquering Syria, the Holy Land, Egypt, Iraq, and Arabia, becoming the protectors of Islam's most sacred sites including Medina and Mecca.  Returning to Europe they conquered the island of Rhodes evicting the Knights Hospitallers who had been a thorn in their side for decades (read The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of) and capping it all by destroying the Hungarian monarchy in 1526 bringing them into the heart of Europe.  The Ottoman dynasty was dynamic and its military sophisticated by the standards of the times.

By 1683 the situation was much different.  The mid-16th century was the highpoint of Ottoman expansionism.  Turkish fleets roamed the Mediterranean, in cooperation with the King of France, against their mutual enemies.  On land the Sultan's army seemed invincible.

Then, in 1565, the Ottomans attempted to capture Malta, the new home of the Knights Hospitallers.  It was a disastrous failure, followed six years later by the devastating naval defeat at Lepanto, off the Greek Coast in which the allied Western navies crushed the Ottomans.  After Lepanto, the Ottoman fleet slowly degraded and the naval threat from Constantinople diminished.

On land, while the Ottomans were still effective on the defence, they faced a stalemate in central Europe, where they and the Hapsburgs traded incremental territorial gains back and forth.  It was only in the steppe lands north of the Black Sea where the Turks attained some permanent gains, but in lands with no larger strategic impact.

After Suleiman's death in 1566, the Sultanate was occupied by a series of ineffectual sultans.  Along with the navy's deterioration, the army became resistant to changes in military technology and tactics, areas in which the West was beginning to move ahead.

In retrospect the campaign of 1683 should be seen as nothing more than a large-scale raid, a last effort to reclaim ancient glory.  In the Balkans and Central Europe, the Ottomans followed a tradition of slowly assembling armies in the spring, with the forces meeting near Belgrade and then slowly advancing north along the Danube River.  With its borders now so far from Constantinople, the Ottoman army would usually not reach the frontier until mid-summer leaving little time for campaigning before it withdrew in the fall, which is precisely what happened in 1683.

But what would have happened if Vienna had fallen in 1683?  The city would have been sacked, robbed of its possessions, and its remaining inhabitants ransomed or carted off into slavery.  It is unlikely though that Vienna would have been permanently occupied.  It was well beyond the existing frontier, and difficult to supply and maintain even a small occupying force.  It could have been easily reconquered.  The city's fall would have been a shock to Western Europe, but one without lasting consequences, and one easily reversed.

What the second siege did mark was the definite end of Ottoman dreams of expansion in Europe and psychologically is freed Europe from its fear of the Sultanate.  A counteroffensive led by the Hapsburgs quickly conquered Hungary and though the Ottomans remained in the Balkans for two more centuries their power was broken.