-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Aryaman said:
Geoffrey Regan´s book The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders. Washington, D.C.: Brassey's. ISBN 157488252X. mentions that battle and it was the primary source. I wonder what sources Mr. Regan used in Karansebes issue.
According to Matthew Z. Mayer, Joseph II and the campaign of 1788 against the Ottoman Turks (a thesis submited in the McGill University in 1997), the history is traced to an article by Bernard, Paul P. 'Austria's Last Turkish War.' Austran History Yearbook. VOL 19-20, 1983-1984, pp. 15-31, where he says that "before order could be restored over 10,000 men had been lost" but he also fails to give any source. In contrast the letter by Joseph II himslef paints a very different picture. Mind that it was a private letter to Archduke Leopold, and in other private letters written in the campaign Joseph II saved no criticism, so in all probability his tale of "3 guns lost" if no other primary source is found should be considered the right one.
Aryaman said:
Personally, I find the idea of infantry firing, spooking the calvary and then causing a bit of a ruckus more believable than a drunken party where the calvary erect fortifications (!) around the alcohol and the army misunderstands halt as allah, leading to 10% losses for the army.
One thing that bothers me about the account though.....the infantry became alarmed and fired their rifles. Is it a translation error from German or what? The Austrian infantry used muskets in 1788 and there are seperate words in German for rifle and musket.
o
Yes, that also surprised me, could be the translation, or maybe rifled muskets? those were used by light infantry at the timeVictor1234 said:Personally, I find the idea of infantry firing, spooking the calvary and then causing a bit of a ruckus more believable than a drunken party where the calvary erect fortifications (!) around the alcohol and the army misunderstands halt as allah, leading to 10% losses for the army.
One thing that bothers me about the account though.....the infantry became alarmed and fired their rifles. Is it a translation error from German or what? The Austrian infantry used muskets in 1788 and there are seperate words in German for rifle and musket.
Aryaman said:
Rifled muskets were pretty rare because they were so expensive. However, former hunters and gamekeepers most likely had them as their own muskets when they served as light infantry.
Finnish Dragon said:
I thought about that too, but going by the Napoleonic Wars Austrian army, the only units equipped with rifles were the Tyrolian Jaegars. Apparantely, they accepted only Germans (and later due to the demands for manpower during the wars with Napoleon, Czechs as well) but no Romanians. Considering there were no Romanians in the calvary and no Romanian-specific infantry regiments either, it seems to me the Austrians used them mostly as replacements for the regular line infantry regiments.
Also, this is a good twenty years before even the British started experimenting with rifles, so it'd be really unlikely that the Austrians would have them by this point.
I don't know about others languages but in french we also have a different word for musket and rifle, but as the etymology isn't the same than the english one, the meaning of the french "fusil" is less precise (as it's not necessarilly a "rifled" gun...).
That means, for exemple, that in napoleonic times french soldiers used what we would call "muskets" in the modern english terminology, but those "muskets" were called "fusils" (rifles) in french at the time and even to this day.
So, don't let yourself be overly confused about terminology and translation, that may be the same or something similar in others languages too.
It's a fact i've noticed,that usually english (or maybe just modern english) is very precise about weaponry names while in french and especially in primary sources (modern french try to be more precise too), the names for weapons are used for a wide variety of sometimes quite different weapons (a poleaxe is just an "axe" in french for exemple (that may be because creating composed word is far more difficult in french, or for others reasons linked to the logic of the language).
That means, for exemple, that in napoleonic times french soldiers used what we would call "muskets" in the modern english terminology, but those "muskets" were called "fusils" (rifles) in french at the time and even to this day.
So, don't let yourself be overly confused about terminology and translation, that may be the same or something similar in others languages too.
It's a fact i've noticed,that usually english (or maybe just modern english) is very precise about weaponry names while in french and especially in primary sources (modern french try to be more precise too), the names for weapons are used for a wide variety of sometimes quite different weapons (a poleaxe is just an "axe" in french for exemple (that may be because creating composed word is far more difficult in french, or for others reasons linked to the logic of the language).
Last edited:
Here's a page from the book used as the wiki article's source.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3Q...ZDyiwHboZHmDQ&sig=AAiBanajpeIEdSTjeYkYNHdUtRE
http://books.google.com/books?id=3Q...ZDyiwHboZHmDQ&sig=AAiBanajpeIEdSTjeYkYNHdUtRE
The second Siege of Vienna was one of the most silly sieges ever laid and resulted in the destruction of Ottoman forces.
When the main Turkish army arrived at the gates of Vienna on July 14, 1683, they outnumbered the Austrian forces 20 to 1. Turkish Grand Vizier (Sadrazam) and Commander in Chief (Serdar-i Ekrem) Kara Mustafa Pasha ordered to lay siege to the city instead of a direct assault and waited for capitulation.
He waited for two months with 180,000 troops of Ottoman Janissaries and allies from Crimea, Moldova, Transylvania and Wallachia sitting still until a Holy League Army lead by the Polish King came to relieve Vienna.
Instead of ordering a direct assault which would lead to the destruction of the city, he wanted to capture Vienna with all of her beauty intact. Good intentions, bad decision.
When the main Turkish army arrived at the gates of Vienna on July 14, 1683, they outnumbered the Austrian forces 20 to 1. Turkish Grand Vizier (Sadrazam) and Commander in Chief (Serdar-i Ekrem) Kara Mustafa Pasha ordered to lay siege to the city instead of a direct assault and waited for capitulation.
He waited for two months with 180,000 troops of Ottoman Janissaries and allies from Crimea, Moldova, Transylvania and Wallachia sitting still until a Holy League Army lead by the Polish King came to relieve Vienna.
Instead of ordering a direct assault which would lead to the destruction of the city, he wanted to capture Vienna with all of her beauty intact. Good intentions, bad decision.
Keeping 180.000 men in siege lines for 2 months? That is one of those numbers I find so difficult to give credit...Tunch Khan said:
They built a city of tents just outside Vienna with it's huge gardens, fountains and even a zoo which looked much more glorious than Vienna itself.Aryaman said:
Draigh said:Well, that's because it was impossible... as the Ottomans found out.
Interesting - I didn't know their army besieged Vienna for so long. Based on general history you get the feeling they got there, realized they couldn't take iVienna and quickly left. More than likely the Ottomans simply couldn't continue to feed such a large army in a static position for so long and had to fall back on their supply lines to prevent starvation of soldiers and animals.
The supply lines was not an issue. It was the greed of the Pasha who wanted the city for his glory only. Had he ordered a direct assault, the city would be subject to three day looting and the Sultan would receive a major portion of the assets.
Had the city capitulated, then Kara Mustafa Pasha would get the honor and the lion's share. He did not take into account that neighboring nations would unite to create a "Holy League" and face them. He was too arrogant.
Had the city capitulated, then Kara Mustafa Pasha would get the honor and the lion's share. He did not take into account that neighboring nations would unite to create a "Holy League" and face them. He was too arrogant.
Not necessarily. Who'd imagine the neighboring ruling houses would set aside their dynastic and economic squabbles just to unite to save Haus Habsburg?Tunch Khan said:
AndersX said:
Anyone in their right mind?
This is not 14xx anymore, and the main barrier against the Turk, Hungary is now gone and reduced to squabbling parts.
Also, there is a theory quite prevalent in Hungary that states that Vienna was actually beyond the reach of the OE. They had to gather their army from Anatolia, and must have been back by early early autumn. Combined with the marching, they barely had time to siege Vienna. The siege you mention is a strange exeption, and IIRC the only time the OE seriously flexed is muscle towards europe after the campaings against Hunagry in 1540-1560.
According to Rhoads Murphy "Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700" the size of Ottoman armies was always greatly exagerated by Western sources. The Ottoman records for the siege listed just 60 ortas of Jannisaries (12.000 men paper strength). The Ottoman kept an observation army in the area (not in the trench lines) to cover enemy approaches. As it was formed by the timariot and by the Ottoman allies (mainly Tatar) irregular forces there are no official records of their numbers, but Murphy estimates a maximum size of about 50-000-60.000.
Well, there is the last known use of the trebuchet, being by the conquistadors during the battle/siege of Tenochtitlán in the Aztec Empire. The trebuchet was built from scratch, and when fired the projectile went straight up, and then down again, subsequently crushing both the trebuchet and three Spanish soldiers. They won in the end though, but surely not due to the trebuchet.
They won in the end though, but surely not due to the trebuchet.
Aryaman said:
This is more than likely the case (an army of 50 - 60,000) However add in camp followers, civilian victualers, slaves and captives, animals and handlers, etc. and you can easily double this number. Any way you look at it even if 50 - 60,000 is the total number including all these other people it's still a heck of a big army for the era.