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

Andrew Wheatcroft does an excellent job of narrating the dramatic struggle between the Hapsburg Empire and it's allies and the Ottoman Empire and their allies for control of Central Europe. He describes not only the military events but also the political and cultural aspects of this struggle. I enjoyed the entire book but being retired military the descriptions of the various military forces involved were most interesting to me. The Janissaries and Sipahis were aggressive, fierce and highly courageous but they were facing opponents who learned their trade in the Thirty Years War and understood the value of dicipline and massed firepower. Wheatcroft makes a good argument that,"Nothing until the battle for Stalingrad in 1942 equalled the relentless struggle in the ditch before Vienna." I disagree with the other reviewer who questioned the need for Wheatcroft's continuing the story to include the campaigns to liberate Hungary. I thought it was facinating to read about the heroic old Pasha of Buda and his doomed stand against Lorraine, and I'll read about Pringe Eugene any day. There's a reason why Napoleon called Eugene one of the greatest generals of all time. If you have any interest in the history of Central Europe or just want to read a great story you owe it to yourself to read "Enemy at the Gate."

With only rudimentary knowledge about either the Ottoman Empire or the Holy Roman (Habsburg) One, I found Andrew Wheatcroft's "The Enemy at the Gate" to be a good primer about the empires, their epic clash in 1683, and 17th century European history generally. Although the narrative lacks focus, its heart - a study of the massive Ottoman campaign against the capital of the Habsburg Holy Roman Empire - is solid.

The conquest of Vienna would have been the crown achievement of the Ottoman Empire, a victory to rival the conquest of Constantinople. Vienna had withstood a siege by Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in 1521, and topping his achievement would have immortalized his distant successor, Mehmet IV. It was a battle for the glory of the empire and that of Islam - "to be hailed as the Conqueror of Vienna was an irresistible Prospect" (p. 82).

Irresistible, but far fetched. From the get go, the Ottomans were disadvantaged - their troops, although superior to the Habsburg forces individually, were far less disciplined, and were unable to maneuver as ably. The Ottomans were facing an invasion of a well defended country in an era in which military maneuvering were moving away from pitch battles into sieges. By the late seventeenth Century, the Ottoman Habsburg border was littered with formidable castles. Vienna itself sported impressive defenses, admittedly poorly maintained. Mehmet's task was considerably more onerous than the one attempted by his legendary ancestor.

Not that the Sultan was there to command the campaign - in fact, neither sovereign participated directly in the campaign. Mehmet IV, after accompanying his soldiers part of the way as a de jure commander, gave formal authority to his Grand Vizier, Kara Mustafa in Belgrade. On the Habsburg side, the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I abandoned Vienna as soon as it appeared the Ottomans were approaching.

The Ottoman army caught the Holy Roman Empire unaware; Its leaders did not foresee a march on Vienna, and the city was left mostly undefended, with its main forces scattered. Arriving in Vienna in middle of July, the Turks surrounded the city, and the war started in earnest.

The Ottoman Siege of Vienna was a pitched battle, a daily carnage as the Ottomans inched forward, mining and destroying the Viennese defenses piece by piece, all the time under heavy fire. "Nothing until the battle of Stalingrad in 1942 equaled the relentless struggle in the ditch before Vienna... men fought over the mountains of debris, shattered buildings and a landscape of utter desolation" (p. 150).

By the end of august, a month and a half after the siege has commenced, the Ottomans have cracked through most of the main defenses. Battles now raged around improvised, yet effective, barriers. But as the City's defenses endured, help was on the way. A coalition of Habsburg, Polish, and several Germanic states' forces made its way towards Vienna. Battle was matched on September the 12th, 1683.

Wheatcroft's description of the battle is confusing. With only one map, deciphering the various tactical moves is difficult. Yet the bottom line is clear: after 12 hours of heavy fighting, the result was an utter rout for the Ottoman forces. Vienna, and Christendom, saved.

Unfortunately, Wheatcroft's account does not stop after the siege was lifted, or even after the successful Habsburg counter attack, which led to the re-conquest of Hungary by the early 18th century. Instead, Wheatcroft spends several rambling chapters tracking Turkish-Western relations to the present, in a transparent and cheap attempt at political relevance.

He would have been wise to avoid it. Until the final chapters, "The Enemy at the Gate" is a workmanlike history of the Battle of Vienna and its aftermath. It is mostly well written, albeit somewhat confusing: The narrative jumps around places and times in a manner that makes it difficult for the reader to keep track. In chronicling decades of Ottoman-Habsburg clashes, it is sometimes difficult to decide where and when events occurred. Nevertheless, if we overlook its pretensions and expositional faults, "The Enemy at the Gate" is a worthwhile piece for anyone interested in the mighty clash between two competing empires, and two great faiths.

As an aged reader of histories, I often wonder at my seemingly insatiable appetite for more accounts of more events in more detail. Just can't get enough. We experienced pursuers of what's past pretty much know how "things," be they prominent persons' lives, or battles, or natural cataclysms, or whatever, turned out, that is, we know who won the battle, invented the whatever, caught the miscreant, etc., but we always want to know more. How many books can one read about, say, World War I, and not be completely sated? Well, it turns out, at least in my case, to be just about every one that comes down the pike. No historian can ever adequately describe the convoluted causes, the military missteps, the human suffering, the nation-changing results. But they continue to try, and we continue to be fascinated by their efforts.

I guess if my memory of relatively recent readings had served me better, I would have passed on Author Wheatcroft's latest effort in view of my reaction to his 2005 work, "Infidels." As with that earlier effort, "Enemy" gets off to a decent start but trails off in unsupported observations and uncertain conclusions. Two failings stand out in my mind. First, Mr. Wheatcroft possesses a distressingly dry and unimaginative writing style. If an author can't invigoratingly portray the inherent drama and human terror and suffering of the Siege of Vienna, then I don't know what other event could propel the effort. I understand that it was long ago and that the implicit sprawl of a siege does not lend itself to concise and engaging descriptions. One could say the same about 16th century sea battles, but as Roger Crowley demonstrates in his marvelous "Empires of the Sea," it is possible to tell a very complicated and diffused story in a manner that excites and engages the reader and makes him wonder as he anxiously turns the pages whether he really does recall how "things turned out." Crowley succeeds; Wheatcroft does not.

Secondly, and as other reviewers have mentioned, the book just cries out for even the most rudimentary maps and diagrams to aid understanding of the geographic and fortification challenges for both sides in the sieges of Vienna and Buda. Instead, the author includes several pretty, and pretty much worthless, romantic portrayals of the action. There simply must exist illustrative documents that would enhance the reader's appreciation of the action, but if there are, you won't find them here. Very frustrating.

The late, and very great, film director, John Huston, was once asked what he looked for in auditioning an actor for a particularly obscure and demanding role. He answered, "A quality so fragile that it would die in the description." Precisely. That's what we history buffs always desire but so seldom find. "The Enemy at the Gate" is a worthy and obviously deeply researched effort which ultimately comes up short. Our search continues.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 34 reviews  3.6 out of 5 stars