|
|
Turning the Ottoman Tide – John III Sobieski at Vienna 1683By Anthony Pagden | MHQ | 10 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post But beginning in the 1680s with Peter the Great, founder of St. Petersburg, who is described by Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, as “having given the customs and manners of Europe to a European power,” the tsars began to modernize. Once its aristocracy took to wearing silk brocade and conversing in French, what had hitherto been looked upon as the backward empire of the steppe gradually came to seem inescapably European. The modernization, or “Europeanization,” initiated by Peter had not only transformed an Asiatic people into a central European one. It had also greatly enhanced the military capabilities of the tsars. Now Russia moved to seize her portion from what was clearly a giant in distress. On August 6, 1696, Peter the Great captured the Black Sea port of Azov. The Turks agreed for the first time in their history to discuss peace. In October, representatives of the two sides met at Carlowitz in the Voivodina. Finally, on January 22, 1699, with the help of British and Dutch mediators, a peace treaty was signed among the Ottomans, the Russians, and the various members of the Holy League. The Treaty of Carlowitz was not a total surrender, but it deprived the Ottomans of territories in Eastern Europe: almost all of Hungary and Transylvania, which they considered not to be European or Christian at all but a fully integrated part of the Islamic world. More crushing still, it was the first time in history that a sultan, the “Commander of the Faithful” and heir presumptive to the caliphate, had been compelled to sign a treaty with his enemies. In so doing the sultan had in effect agreed to abide by the admittedly rough-and-ready tenets of international law, as it was understood in the West. It was an unprecedented move for a political and religious culture for which war against all unbelievers was a necessary duty, the permanent obligation of every ruler. Muslims could and did enter into treaties with non-Muslim rulers. These might, for the sake of convenience, last for a very long time. But no Muslim ruler could accept a permanent settlement with a non-Muslim state, if only because the obligation of the jihad prevented them from recognizing that state’s very right to exist. At Carlowitz, the sultan, the supreme leader of the Muslim world, had, implicitly at least, violated one of the precepts of the shari’a. It would change the nature of the Ottoman state forever. As long as Ottoman forces had been supreme, there had seemed to be little reason to question the established order. Now there was. Mehmed II might have adopted Byzantine and Latin modes of address and had himself depicted by Christian painters employing Western iconographical motifs. But no sultan before Mustafa II had had any compelling reason to suppose that the great empire over which he ruled would not go on until the day when the dar al-Islam would cover the entire world, one under Ottoman rule. This vision of the future began to fade after the Treaty of Carlowitz and continued thereafter to get dimmer and dimmer. More than any previous event, Carlowitz forced upon the Ottomans a new awareness of the potential might of the West and the recognition that, if the empire was to survive, it would have to adopt new ways of dealing with the West, ways that would replace the simple force of the jihad with diplomacy. It marked, too, an unmistakable reversal of fortune. Now it would be the West—utterly transformed culturally, religiously, politically, and militarily from the squabbling assembly of states that had failed to stop first Mehmed II and then Suleiman—that would take the offensive. And from 1699 until 1918, when a contingent of British troops entered Istanbul, it would be the West that steadily but inexorably pushed back the frontiers of Islam. MHQ Adapted from Worlds at War, by Anthony Pagden. ©2008 by Anthony Pagden. Published by arrangement with Random House, Inc. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
            Tags: 17th - 18th Century, Historical Conflicts, Historical Figures
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
10 Comments to “Turning the Ottoman Tide – John III Sobieski at Vienna 1683”
I think this article is not that objective. It has gone too far about looting and calling muslims as barbarians.
By Mete Han on Aug 11, 2008 at 6:11 am
Great article, very informative. Gives a great overview of a serious subject that resonates today in America’s so called “War on Terror”
By Murphy Maloney on Aug 26, 2008 at 5:33 pm
These days, September 2008 we have 325 anniversary of this battle. You can discuss this battle at the historynet.com forum:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67411
By Bartosz on Sep 7, 2008 at 4:21 am
I think the article is a decent overview of the ottoman empire trending upward and then its decline but the title is all wrong. It should have stopped at “Turning the Ottoman Tide” for in reality what did it mention the battle of Vienna for? 4 paragraphs?
By Bob Sandusky on Dec 26, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Nicely written article.
It would have been reasonable to remind readers that Janissaries were mostly Christian children, forcably taken from Christian families in conquered regions, brought up by Muslims under conditions of religious manipulation, converted to Islam when they came of age, then sent out with zeal to commit Jihads against Christians.
The Janissary core was one of many methods used by Muslims to convert the Middle East and North Africa to Islam.
By Tom Sontag on Jan 31, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I thought that the article (which was, indeed, taken from a much larger work) was immense in its coverage of a hugh piece of history. BUT, I missed a better description of the heroic deeds of John III, particularly his cavalry, whic h played such an important tole in the salvation of the West.
By Bob Sayers on May 27, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I thank you for this article. I appreciate an honest historian. The article complaining about calling some of the Muslim men of the year(s) mentioned want to candy coat reality. I realize with the heat of battle/caught up in the moment men on both sides of a battle may over due their anger. The reason we have enjoyed our living style(s) and history is in thanks to the monks (scriptoria), Benedictines e.g., and the Roman Catholic men and women who stood in the breach and fought and/or shed their blood; both secular/laity and the Knights .g. St. Johns Hospitalliers, the Knights of St. Peter Alcantara etc…
Read William Thomas Walsh book’s “Isabella the Catholic of Spain” and “Phillip II”. This is why the Roman Catholic church that is being preserved with the Latin mass is right. We will need our faith and will be shedding blood. I believe there is another group of a different faith that is instigating this, too. As in the case of what we have seen since 1948.
Palestine until then, 1948 and even before the 1920’s with the British helping with a settlement, was quiet.
The Palestinians, both Christian and Arab, are right in their grievance.
Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat
By Clarence J. LaFuentes II on Jun 12, 2009 at 5:48 pm
The article was very good and covered most of the better information available. I was recently in Constantinople and it is still in ruins. The city has not been taken care of but there is a newer movement to clean it up to bring in Western Tourists.
The history there is directed towards Islam and how wonderfully it changed everything for the better there and not Christianity. You need to study the facts before you go to Constantinople and Vienne and this article will help in that regard. Sadly, the Janissary core did betray their own families also.
Don Juan of Austria, Eugene of Savoy (Austrian General) and King John III Sobieski of Poland and the emperor’s brother-in-law, Charles Sixte of Lorraine should all be given much more credit for what they did for the West. World wide historical kudos should still be showered on Sobieski for his decision to march through the Wienerwald to catch the Turks off guard. There is a church and lookout on that hill now to honor this.
The uneducated public does not realize that the Muslims are still at the Gates of Vienna and the West has thrown those gates open to the good people to come in for jobs but the bad are also slithering in under their shoes into the European Union.
This article is good in historical context of the times. Yes,
Turkey proudly announces that it is .99 % Muslim and open to the West.
By John Riggs on Jun 13, 2009 at 7:01 am