Between a "brilliant retreat" and a "tragic defeat": Ottoman narratives of the 1529 and 1683 sieges of Vienna

This is the latest version of this item.

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004442351_015

This paper is an initial attempt at de-contextualizing the Ottoman campaigns of 1529 and 1683 in order to bring forth the basics of a large-scale military campaign aiming a particular direction, ending in a particular target, and resulting in retreat. The strategic decision-making processes underlying the two sieges of Vienna by the Ottomans are explored through the contemporary writings of Ottoman authors and European prints in circulation. The trajectory of Ottoman claims on universal kingship is traced through the two campaigns, both appearing to be vindictive and punitive in their discursive justifications. Although both sieges have been widely studied by historians focusing on diverse issues related to each campaign, an overall comparative view remains incomplete. This void largely stems from the conventional periodization of Ottoman history often confining the expertise and/or interest of the modern-day historian either to the sixteenth century or to the seventeenth century. Such confinement, while allowing for comprehensive treatment of one particular event, isolates the particular subject of study as a unique instance in time. In an attempt to overcome this obstacle, this paper cross-examines the strategic elements and discursive justifications involved in these sieges. It, then, aims to re-contextualize the campaigns to figure out why one siege is hailed as victory and the other as defeat while both ended in retreat.