TK Commentary V2.Pages
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
craven refusal to shoulder any blame. Some went to Bavaria and Türkenkrieg 1737-1739 some to Prussia; but their later performance was generally creditable, and one of them rose very high in Prussian service. If it were written with a needle on the corner of an eye, it Obviously, there is more here than meets the eye. would yet serve as a lesson to those who seek wisdom. Introduction Sources The Russo-Austro-Turkish War of 1735-39 (sometimes the 4th The sources for this commentary are listed in the bibliography. It Austro-Turkish War) is an utterly obscure topic. Which is a pity. is curious how widely some of them differ, though they reference An excellent illustration of Kabinettkrieg, and of the 'savage wars' each other’s works. Roider is probably the best authority in the against the Turk, it is not short of political lessons. More than any list. General Brown’s five-volume history is essential, as it other form of war, perhaps, Kabinettkrieg was politics carried out contains numerous charts and tables drawn directly from the by other means. Imperial archives; fortunately Roider had access to the manuscript and he provides details not found in the microfilm version used by But for an utterly obscure topic, it certainly draws its share of this author. contention. The conflict is a sandbox for scholars arguing over the much more glamorous issue of the Eastern Question – that is, the [You try reading 19th Century German script white-on-black from five relationship between Austria-Hungary and Russia, and the rolls of film that some person (the cognomen is used loosely) has managed to splice multiple times forwards, backwards, and inverted (!)] influence of the Ottoman Empire on that relationship. Of course, when one enters the realm of scholars, one must expect events to Unfortunately, there is no corresponding history from the be expounded primarily to bolster preconceived arguments. Ottoman perspective, at least in English. They did not go in for such things at the time, preferring poetic panegyrics of the The 'Popular' View Sultan’s prowess (the Sultan did not take part in this war). But Since most people have never heard of this war, it seems strange Hickok’s work uses the campaign in Bosnia for an example, and that there should be a popular view. Perhaps it would be better to his material is taken from the Ottoman records. say that there was a popular view at one time. Pull a generic There are massive discrepancies in the troop strengths, a not volume of Austrian or Russian or Turkish history off the shelf and uncommon occurrence, since older authors often quoted paper one may learn that the Austrians were intent on expansion, estimates and political promises as fact. But it is necessary to try eagerly agreeing to Russia’s request for aid in its own war against to achieve a certain amount of clarity. Actions which appear the Turks. We are told that, as a good Catholic, the Emperor inexplicable with 90,000 men might make perfect sense with Charles VI was keen to participate in a Crusade against the 24,000. Both the Ottomans and the Imperials claim to have been Infidel. facing vast numerical superiority, presumably on the one hand to We are told of a grand campaign down the Danube, with the goal justify defeat, and on the other, to add lustre to victory. In reality of linking up with a Russian army and ultimately laying siege to their numbers were (probably) comparable: 35-45,000 effectives Constantinople. But the Emperor, bowing to pressure from glory for the Imperials, out of perhaps 90-100,000 being paid to take seekers or through unspecified idiocy, changes his mind and part, and 40-50,000 for the Ottomans, with a similar number of demands Bosnia be conquered. Through mismanagement, bad hangers on. The numbers appear to have been consistent luck, and Turkish prowess, the campaign fails and the Habsburgs throughout the war. are thrown on the strategic defensive. And then there is the 'war of the memoirs' waged by the generals, Things go from bad to worse, and the war ends with the loss of responsible for many discrepancies in the accounting of events. most of the gains achieved under the great Eugene of Savoy a Beyond the expected self-justifications and the unavoidable generation before. Demonstrating the ingratitude of a true differences in perspective, there was a primary political issue at aristocrat, the Emperor blames his generals in such an obvious stake – the Imperial Succession. Two parties were involved, and manner that everyone understands it was his own fault. Charles each had to discredit the other; a failed war was the perfect VI then dies of shame, precipitating the War of the Austrian backdrop. It helped that some men were embittered by dismissal. Succession. All this means that there is very little that can be said without The final act of the tragedy, the siege of Belgrade in 1739, reveals qualification. One can say that the war was started by Russia and the clumsy Graf von Neipperg attempting to negotiate a general that their primary strategic goals were the same as ever – border surrender with the Turks, stymied by the need to first determine security – ‘we cannot secure our buffer zone without giving it a the fate of Belgrade. Neipperg tells the Emperor the place is buffer zone’ – and a warm-water port. The Habsburgs’ reasons for indefensible, and then places himself in isolation in the Turkish going to war were mixed, and are therefore a subject of additional camp, where, browbeaten and tricked, he caves in. Meanwhile, debate, but broadly speaking, they entered the fray as an ally of the defenders of the fortress convince the Emperor the place can Russia in order to preserve a newly acquired friendship. be held indefinitely, but it is too late; the countermanding orders ['Austrians' is a colloquial name, just as 'Turks' is for the Ottoman Empire never reach Neipperg. – more correctly, it was the House of Habsburg, or Habsburg Empire, if So much for a randomly selected general history. It is a fact that you will, holding simultaneous leadership of a second imperial domain, the Holy Roman Empire. The combined elements of the two entities are Neipperg and a number of other generals were tried and often called the Imperials. As for the Ottomans, the bulk of their imprisoned (one was even beheaded) for their failure to beat the population was not Turkish, and a high percentage was not even Muslim. Turk, and that the Emperor still received most of the blame – but, The Ottomans were the ruling caste, and a person of almost any ethnicity curiously, Neipperg, for one, was released by the Emperor's could be 'Ottoman', if they simply followed the Ottoman Way.] successor and appointed to the critical Silesian command in 1741. Other 'mediocrities', like Graf von Khevenhüller, were also given Text Note: spelling of place and personal names avoids the use of the symbols ˛ ˘ and ˇ, since Turkic language software costs money; this is not a second chance. The latter man, curiously, was in 1741 placed in a problem with the map. The symbol ˛ is used in Turkish and Romanian to charge of the defence of Vienna, and soon after led a brilliant denote 'sh' 'th', 'gh'. The symbol ˇ does the same in Slavic. 'Nish' in Alpine offensive against Bavaria in the dead of winter. Some Turkish is thus spelt on the map with the ˛ under the 's'. In Slavic, it is generals who were accused of incompetence defected from spelt 'Nis' with the ˇ over the 's'. Pronunciation is 'Nezh'. Imperial service, supposedly out of disgust at the Emperor’s !1 Scarlet Threads very high stakes, to have those sanctions guaranteed internationally, particularly by those who might deem themselves Russia’s war lasted five years – from 1735 to 1739, and the rivals for the same property. This issue dovetailed with the issue Emperor’s war lasted three – from 1737 to 1739. The results for of the Imperial Succession. the Imperials (Habsburg-Austrians) were twofold: a politico- military disaster that led directly to the attempted dismemberment The Imperial Succession of the Habsburg Empire in 1741, and a friendship with the Bear The Empire was elective. Or, rather, at this stage of its history, the that lasted until the Crimean War. One might argue that a lost man selected to be Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the minor war was worth that long-term gain. The Ottomans, for their German Nation had to hold the elective office of King of the part, had no reason for going to war other than self-defence, but Romans – essentially if ironically, 'King of the Germans'. The once at war they were able to take back some lost territory and Empire itself was of little tangible value. It had great resources, regain some lost prestige. but they were controlled by a horde of petty dynasts rather than a The reasons for Habsburg involvement in Russia’s war dated back single regime, and the Empire as an institution grew weaker by to the start of the 18th Century. The War of the Spanish the decade. Succession (1701-1713/14) separated the Spanish throne from the What the ruler of the Empire did have was tremendous prestige. House of Habsburg. By the end of the war, Charles VI was head Before the idea of the nation-state made possible the unification of the Austrian Branch of the House of Habsburg, and ruler of the of Germany, the Emperor was perceived as the sole unifying force Holy Roman Empire, positions he would retain until his death in in Central Europe; the alternative, something even the Empire’s 1740, but his dynasty came out of that war poorer in both land neighbours did not want, was a political vacuum, and chaos.