The Great Siege of Buda (1686)

From Materia Islamica
Jump to: navigation, search

Homa.png

Epitomization/Illustration
Ottoman minature of the siege of Buda (1686).
Duration: June 17th, 1686
—September 2nd, 1686
(330 or 331 years ago)
Result: European Pyrrhic Victory[n. 1]
Belligerents:
//Open:


Flag of Turkey.svg.png Ottoman Empire

Belligerents:
//Open:


Ah-1686.jpg Habsburg Empire

Strength:
//Open:


Flag of Turkey.svg.png 3,000 Janissaries[n. 2]
Flag of Turkey.svg.png 1,000 Jews
Flag of Turkey.svg.png 200[1]—500[2] Cannon

Strength:
//Open:


Ah-1686.jpg 56,000[3]—100,000[4]
Ah-1686.jpg 246 Cannon[n. 3][1]

Casualties:
//Open:


Flag of Turkey.svg.png 2,000—3,000[n. 4]
Flag of Turkey.svg.png 6,000 enslaved[5]
Flag of Turkey.svg.png 500 Jews ransomed[5]

Casualties:
//Open:


Ah-1686.jpg 20,000 killed[6][7]


In the 17th century a powerful, well-experienced, well-trained and well-equipped army besieged the Ottoman castle of Buda, which today forms a part of modern day Hungary.[2][n. 5][n. 6][n. 7] This army was lead by Charles of Lorraine, and consisted of men recruited from Austria, Bavaria, Franconia, Swabia, Saxony, Brandenburg, Swedena and Hungary.[2] This military machine was thus colossal, and made up of at least 20,000 cavalry, 30,000 foot soldiers, and 6,000 knights.[2] The castle itself was defended by a small force of at most 4,000 soldiers (with an additional 3,000 non-combatants populating the city, along with 1,000 horses),[8][n. 8][n. 9][n. 10] armed with 200[1]—500 cannons (a feat considering cannons had to be operated by a significant amount of men), lead by Abdur Rahman—the "Pasha of Buda".[2] Followed by its geography, fortifications, and thick walls which gave it extra protection, it would manage to endure months of shelling, musket-fire and raw manpower.[2]

The war itself erupted on June 17th, 1686, gripping the Eurasian continent for several agonising months.[2] In the midst of the siege the castle was time after time painfully repaired by the Turks, as instantly as they could manage,[2] holding out ferociously, even though their numbers were miniscule in contrast to the vast, powerful and seemingly unending European army.[2] The battle acosted a huge toll on Lorraine, as he even offered peace terms to the Turks on more than one occasion,[2] but Rahman was having none of it, staunchly refusing to give in.[2] What made the entire episode so tragic was that the Pasha's men were ultimately abandoned to their fate, which culminated into an orgy of violence.[2][n. 11][n. 12]

In the 17th century a powerful, well-experienced, well-trained and well-equipped army besieged the Ottoman castle of Buda, which today forms a part of modern day Hungary.[2][n. 13][n. 14][n. 15] This army was lead by Charles of Lorraine, and consisted of men recruited from Austria, Bavaria, Franconia, Swabia, Saxony, Brandenburg, Swedena and Hungary.[2] This military machine was thus colossal, and made up of at least 20,000 cavalry, 30,000 foot soldiers, and 6,000 knights.[2] The castle itself was defended by a small force of at most 4,000 soldiers (with an additional 3,000 non-combatants populating the city, along with 1,000 horses),[8][n. 16][n. 17][n. 18] armed with 200[1]—500 cannons (a feat considering cannons had to be operated by a significant amount of men), lead by Abdur Rahman—the "Pasha of Buda".[2] Followed by its geography, fortifications, and thick walls which gave it extra protection, it would manage to endure months of shelling, musket-fire and raw manpower.[2] The war itself erupted on June 17th, 1686, gripping the Eurasian continent for several agonising months.[2] In the midst of the siege the castle was time after time painfully repaired by the Turks, as instantly as they could manage,[2] holding out ferociously, even though their numbers were miniscule in contrast to the vast, powerful and seemingly unending European army.[2] The battle acosted a huge toll on Lorraine, as he even offered peace terms to the Turks on more than one occasion,[2] but Rahman was having none of it, staunchly refusing to give in.[2] What made the entire episode so tragic was that the Pasha's men were ultimately abandoned to their fate, which culminated into an orgy of violence.[2][n. 19][n. 20]

HISTORY

Tactics

Turkish Assaults on the Europeans

Ottoman Sipahi soldier.

Janissaries and Sipahi Defend the Outer Walls:— The castle had survived a previous attempt at an armed siege two years prior to 1686,[9] and just as before the Muslim soldiers had had their families and relatives within the confines of it's walls,[9] which themselves had been repaired rapidly after the first siege.[9] However the fort was still very old, and totally vulnerable to bombards, mortars and cannon fire.[9] Luckily the garrison was reinforced with plenty of guns, gunpowder and bullets in order to prevent it's hasty fall.[9] Perhaps more pressing were issues surrounding basic necessities concerning particularly food and water—which the soldiers were surprisingly well catered for.[9] This was advantageous as their enemies readied themselves for a long, drawn out battle having dug many lines of trenches within the upper and lower town of Buda.[9] The Turks were even so brazen that they used their cavalry to pound the Europeans with horse-charges, often erupting from the castle walls; an amazing feat given that they were significantly outnumbered and vulnerable to projectile fire.[9] After making their charge, the Muslim cavalry would be chased back, with no choice but to retreat.[9] Some of these cavalry would inevitably be caught wounded or killed.[9] One captured Turkish soldier for instance informed his interrogators that his fellow soldiers were ordered that the castle was to be defended to the "last drop of [their] blood".[9] Other captured Janissaries and Sipahi would blare that they were ready to sacrifice their very lives for their emperor.[9] In part, their ferocious stoicity could be explained by the amounts the Sultan was paying them, and their need to protect their families in the castle.[9] They were paid well in advance,[9] and the Turks also knew that surrender meant also the risk of murder.[n. 21]

Ottoman Sipahi soldier.

Janissaries and Sipahi Defend the Outer Walls:— The castle had survived a previous attempt at an armed siege two years prior to 1686,[9] and just as before the Muslim soldiers had had their families and relatives within the confines of it's walls,[9] which themselves had been repaired rapidly after the first siege.[9] However the fort was still very old, and totally vulnerable to bombards, mortars and cannon fire.[9] Luckily the garrison was reinforced with plenty of guns, gunpowder and bullets in order to prevent it's hasty fall.[9] Perhaps more pressing were issues surrounding basic necessities concerning particularly food and water—which the soldiers were surprisingly well catered for.[9] This was advantageous as their enemies readied themselves for a long, drawn out battle having dug many lines of trenches within the upper and lower town of Buda.[9] The Turks were even so brazen that they used their cavalry to pound the Europeans with horse-charges, often erupting from the castle walls; an amazing feat given that they were significantly outnumbered and vulnerable to projectile fire.[9] After making their charge, the Muslim cavalry would be chased back, with no choice but to retreat.[9] Some of these cavalry would inevitably be caught wounded or killed.[9] One captured Turkish soldier for instance informed his interrogators that his fellow soldiers were ordered that the castle was to be defended to the "last drop of [their] blood".[9] Other captured Janissaries and Sipahi would blare that they were ready to sacrifice their very lives for their emperor.[9] In part, their ferocious stoicity could be explained by the amounts the Sultan was paying them, and their need to protect their families in the castle.[9] They were paid well in advance,[9] and the Turks also knew that surrender meant also the risk of murder.[n. 22]

The Brazen Janissaries:— The Europeans decided to make their first major attack on June 21st, after having prepared their offensive capabilities.[9] They were much more better equipped, organised and disciplined than the Turks had ever been vis-a-vis the disaster of Vienna (1683).[9] The Ottomans thus faced a very formidable enemy.[9] The Europeans were methodical, and relentless in their attack, battering the upper and lower city, as much as they could.[9] By June 24th, they moved in their heavy guns forcing the Turks back; by then the Bavarians had occupied the high ground—disastrous, as St. Gellert's Hill directly overlooked the upper town and the castle below.[9] Despite their tactical and strategic advantage however, the Europeans could not win, they could not assault the castle—nor it's town effectively, and root them out.[9] According to some historians, "it was often said that the Turks were exceptionally tenacious in defence, and at Buda they adapted their traditional battle tactics to the rocky terrian".[9] At random points on the circumference of the castle defences, the Europeans endeavoured to punch through.[9] Astonishingly however, the Turks were able to reinforce the area and apply heavy pressure that was enough to repel the Austrians.[9] At the rear of their existing positions, they developed make-shift palisades at punctured walls, and when these were completed the Muslim vanguard fell back strategically, giving a false boost of morale for the Europeans who would then charge in.[9] Well aimed fire from their guns then enabled the Turks to bottleneck their enemies.[9] The Janissaries would even launch counterattacks well behind the European front line, killing them from behind.[9] Here they would battle hand to hand, murdering their enemies relentlessly.[9][n. 23]
16th-17th century Janissary.
16th-17th century Janissary.
The Brazen Janissaries:— The Europeans decided to make their first major attack on June 21st, after having prepared their offensive capabilities.[9] They were much more better equipped, organised and disciplined than the Turks had ever been vis-a-vis the disaster of Vienna (1683).[9] The Ottomans thus faced a very formidable enemy.[9] The Europeans were methodical, and relentless in their attack, battering the upper and lower city, as much as they could.[9] By June 24th, they moved in their heavy guns forcing the Turks back; by then the Bavarians had occupied the high ground—disastrous, as St. Gellert's Hill directly overlooked the upper town and the castle below.[9] Despite their tactical and strategic advantage however, the Europeans could not win, they could not assault the castle—nor it's town effectively, and root them out.[9] According to some historians, "it was often said that the Turks were exceptionally tenacious in defence, and at Buda they adapted their traditional battle tactics to the rocky terrian".[9] At random points on the circumference of the castle defences, the Europeans endeavoured to punch through.[9] Astonishingly however, the Turks were able to reinforce the area and apply heavy pressure that was enough to repel the Austrians.[9] At the rear of their existing positions, they developed make-shift palisades at punctured walls, and when these were completed the Muslim vanguard fell back strategically, giving a false boost of morale for the Europeans who would then charge in.[9] Well aimed fire from their guns then enabled the Turks to bottleneck their enemies.[9] The Janissaries would even launch counterattacks well behind the European front line, killing them from behind.[9] Here they would battle hand to hand, murdering their enemies relentlessly.[9][n. 24]

Refusal to Surrender

Yataghan sword (17th Century).
Refusal to Give In:— The Turks were having a significant amount of success as they repeated these tactics.[9] Hand to hand combat was especially effective, and the Turks used every means of weapon available to them in order to weaken their enemy as much as possible.[9] Such a feat was also done through the use of the "compact, fast-firing Turkish bow", which proved so effective that it performed better than the musket.[9] Even the crown prince Eugene had had an arrow shot through his hand, whilst another one of his soldiers had a musket shot forced through his foot, and suffered grenade injuries.[9] Other officers of the Habsburg army were stabbed to death or were mutilated by the Turkish sabres and yataghan blades.[9] This fighting occurred daily, and the Europeans still could not break through.[9] After several weeks of being hammered, they attempted to sue for peace, but the Turks refused to give in under any circumstance.[9] With options running scarce, the Habsburgs decided to move to attack the strongest position of the castle, which was protected by an arc of fortifications.[9] Their artillery did no significant damage, although it was being bombarded.[9] The Europeans then began using the same tactics as the Turks had done in 1683 at the siege of Vienna, and similarly they would suffer many casualties.[9] A stroke of luck on July 24th, from a mortar shell however; fired by the Bavarians landed on the gunpowder stocks of the city and killed some 1,000 Turks.[9] Yet, still, even after this blow, the Turks did not give in.[9] The Habsburgs were not able to advance; and their bodies were piling up.[9] A second attempt at peace was then made by Lorraine, with terms of surrender.[9] After two hours of deliberation, Abdur Rahman sent a proclaimation staunchly refusing a surrender.[n. 25]
The Turks did attempt to get word to the Ottoman army that was outside the city, but they were unable to participate in the battle.[9] In the meanwhile, the Duke of Lorraine was becoming aware that the morale of his soldiers in the upper town was declining.[9] The Turks had continued their brave and ferocious defence, and did not show any weakness in their resistance.[9] After every attack the Europeans made, it gave the Turks a fresh tactical advantage.[9] The Austrians were quickly growing desperate, and set about to develop a make-shift weapon to knock down the palisades.[9] It was expected that this wheeled weapon, as it would be pushed forward, would be able to drop down onto the wooden poles of the Turkish line of defence.[9] Only then could the infantry and cavalry get through in a rush over the bridge the wheeled contraption was to contain.[9] In order to prevent the Turks from burning it down, the Habsburg engineers decided to cover it with several sheets of tin.[9] The Turks however, aggressive as ever, still burnt it to ashes.[9] They were witnessed to have thrown '"pitch, tar, sulphur and other combustible materials" onto the device, inflicting significant amounts of damage.[9] Increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress, opportunity arose when the European reinforcements finally arrived.[9] Five infantry regiments, as well as twenty-five squadrons of cavalry arrived fresh to join in on the great siege.[9] These newer soldiers were said to have been "maddened" with propaganda.[9] At the time, the Europeans were deathly afraid of the Turks, and much propaganda was made against them, that lead to widespread hatred and fear.
17th Century Ottoman pistols.
Yataghan sword (17th Century).
Refusal to Give In:— The Turks were having a significant amount of success as they repeated these tactics.[9] Hand to hand combat was especially effective, and the Turks used every means of weapon available to them in order to weaken their enemy as much as possible.[9] Such a feat was also done through the use of the "compact, fast-firing Turkish bow", which proved so effective that it performed better than the musket.[9] Even the crown prince Eugene had had an arrow shot through his hand, whilst another one of his soldiers had a musket shot forced through his foot, and suffered grenade injuries.[9] Other officers of the Habsburg army were stabbed to death or were mutilated by the Turkish sabres and yataghan blades.[9] This fighting occurred daily, and the Europeans still could not break through.[9] After several weeks of being hammered, they attempted to sue for peace, but the Turks refused to give in under any circumstance.[9] With options running scarce, the Habsburgs decided to move to attack the strongest position of the castle, which was protected by an arc of fortifications.[9] Their artillery did no significant damage, although it was being bombarded.[9] The Europeans then began using the same tactics as the Turks had done in 1683 at the siege of Vienna, and similarly they would suffer many casualties.[9] A stroke of luck on July 24th, from a mortar shell however; fired by the Bavarians landed on the gunpowder stocks of the city and killed some 1,000 Turks.[9] Yet, still, even after this blow, the Turks did not give in.[9] The Habsburgs were not able to advance; and their bodies were piling up.[9] A second attempt at peace was then made by Lorraine, with terms of surrender.[9] After two hours of deliberation, Abdur Rahman sent a proclaimation staunchly refusing a surrender.[n. 26]
17th Century Ottoman pistols.
The Turks did attempt to get word to the Ottoman army that was outside the city, but they were unable to participate in the battle.[9] In the meanwhile, the Duke of Lorraine was becoming aware that the morale of his soldiers in the upper town was declining.[9] The Turks had continued their brave and ferocious defence, and did not show any weakness in their resistance.[9] After every attack the Europeans made, it gave the Turks a fresh tactical advantage.[9] The Austrians were quickly growing desperate, and set about to develop a make-shift weapon to knock down the palisades.[9] It was expected that this wheeled weapon, as it would be pushed forward, would be able to drop down onto the wooden poles of the Turkish line of defence.[9] Only then could the infantry and cavalry get through in a rush over the bridge the wheeled contraption was to contain.[9] In order to prevent the Turks from burning it down, the Habsburg engineers decided to cover it with several sheets of tin.[9] The Turks however, aggressive as ever, still burnt it to ashes.[9] They were witnessed to have thrown '"pitch, tar, sulphur and other combustible materials" onto the device, inflicting significant amounts of damage.[9] Increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress, opportunity arose when the European reinforcements finally arrived.[9] Five infantry regiments, as well as twenty-five squadrons of cavalry arrived fresh to join in on the great siege.[9] These newer soldiers were said to have been "maddened" with propaganda.[9] At the time, the Europeans were deathly afraid of the Turks, and much propaganda was made against them, that lead to widespread hatred and fear.

The Muslim's Last Stand

European depiction. Note the extensive use of trenches and cannons of the entire city of Buda, within the Buda Castle walls.
Rahman's Last Stand:— The Austrians finally decided to make another attack, and propelled themselves towards the Turkish front lines with these new troops.[9] This initial charge was driven back successfully, but the second was more sudden, but this too failed.[9] Enraged the soldiers made for a third dash, angered at the humilation of being defeated two times in a row.[9] The third assault was battering, and it met with a final clash, overpowering the Turkish defences.[9] The Muslim soldiers were mutilated and slashed by their knives, swords and axes; whether they were living or dead, all fell victim to the incessant violence.[9] Approximately 1,000 Turks who had taken shelter in another fortress nearby were also hacked to death by the Europeans, even though they had hung out white flags; knowing the situation was dire-some.[9] The Europeans had additionally managed to blow a wide hole directly into the castle, and both commanders of the two military sides met.[2] The Turks immediately formed a wall with their own bodies and acted to prevent the charge of the Habsburgs.[2] Rahman unfortunately died defending his people, and his men finally lost their morale.[2] Rahman, who by now was 70 years old, had continued to fight on even though the situation was hopeless.[9] He died defending himself, refusing to retreat or allowing his enemies through.[9] The European soldiers were in bloodlust; the Turks retreated and fought on despite the loss of their commander.[9] According to a witness source; "the garrison retreating from house to house, from wall to wall, firing from windows and holes, and all parts resolved to sell their habitations and lives at the dearest rate".[9] What happened next was one of the biggest tragedies of the century; a total massacre.[9]
European depiction. Note the extensive use of trenches and cannons of the entire city of Buda, within the Buda Castle walls.
Rahman's Last Stand:— The Austrians finally decided to make another attack, and propelled themselves towards the Turkish front lines with these new troops.[9] This initial charge was driven back successfully, but the second was more sudden, but this too failed.[9] Enraged the soldiers made for a third dash, angered at the humilation of being defeated two times in a row.[9] The third assault was battering, and it met with a final clash, overpowering the Turkish defences.[9] The Muslim soldiers were mutilated and slashed by their knives, swords and axes; whether they were living or dead, all fell victim to the incessant violence.[9] Approximately 1,000 Turks who had taken shelter in another fortress nearby were also hacked to death by the Europeans, even though they had hung out white flags; knowing the situation was dire-some.[9] The Europeans had additionally managed to blow a wide hole directly into the castle, and both commanders of the two military sides met.[2] The Turks immediately formed a wall with their own bodies and acted to prevent the charge of the Habsburgs.[2] Rahman unfortunately died defending his people, and his men finally lost their morale.[2] Rahman, who by now was 70 years old, had continued to fight on even though the situation was hopeless.[9] He died defending himself, refusing to retreat or allowing his enemies through.[9] The European soldiers were in bloodlust, and as the Turks retreated, they still fought on despite the loss of their commander.[9] According to a witness source; "the garrison retreating from house to house, from wall to wall, firing from windows and holes, and all parts resolved to sell their habitations and lives at the dearest rate".[9] What happened next was one of the biggest tragedies of the century; a total massacre.[9]

WEAPONRY

Mortars, Grenades and Glass

Use of Mortar Guns and Grenades:— In the 16th century, Ottoman mortars consisted of a only a small part of their artillery.[10] Historically, between 1517 and 1519, 673 guns and mortars were created in Tophane, but only two of these guns were mortars.[10] In 1522, barely 1% of the guns in the Ottoman Rhodes castle were similarly, only mortars.[10] By the 1690s, as a result of the Habsburgs military campaigns, the Muslims were forced to develop lighter pieces of artillery, and so instances of when they hardly used mortars at all are well documented; for instance between 1695 and 1696, they did not make a single new mortar gun.[10] When they even did produce mortars, they were in effect the same size as those produced by their rivals, such as the Habsburgs.[10] Their mortars were 17 kg—246 kg in range, and consisted of 17 kg, 22 kg, 25 kg, 29 kg, 39 kg, 44 kg, 55 kg, 98 kg, 104 kg, 147 kg, 221 kg, and 246 kg calibers.[10] During the siege of Buda however, the Ottomans had used 5 lb, 8 lb, 30 lb, 34 lb, 35 lb, 40 lb, 60 lb, 65 lb, 66 lb, 70 lb, 100 lb and 200 lb calibers.[10] The Austrians used heavy weaponry mortars too, for example the Habsburgs used 400 pounder mortars (which weighed in excess of 9,000 kg) that could fire shots weighing 224 kg, although these were rare.[10] The Ottomans never really had such large pieces to defend themselves with at the siege.[10] Asides from using these weapons, the Turks also used a significant amount of both regular and glass hand grenades; according to some sources the total amounts used consisted of between 52,082—54,106 grenades, but the numbers may have been as high as 84,000 by both sides, with the Turks having twice as many as the enemy.[11]

Mortar (17th century). Military Museum, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mortar (17th century). Military Museum, Istanbul, Turkey.

Use of Mortar Guns and Grenades:— In the 16th century, Ottoman mortars consisted of a only a small part of their artillery.[10] Historically, between 1517 and 1519, 673 guns and mortars were created in Tophane, but only two of these guns were mortars.[10] In 1522, barely 1% of the guns in the Ottoman Rhodes castle were similarly, only mortars.[10] By the 1690s, as a result of the Habsburgs military campaigns, the Muslims were forced to develop lighter pieces of artillery, and so instances of when they hardly used mortars at all are well documented; for instance between 1695 and 1696, they did not make a single new mortar gun.[10] When they even did produce mortars, they were in effect the same size as those produced by their rivals, such as the Habsburgs.[10] Their mortars were 17 kg—246 kg in range, and consisted of 17 kg, 22 kg, 25 kg, 29 kg, 39 kg, 44 kg, 55 kg, 98 kg, 104 kg, 147 kg, 221 kg, and 246 kg calibers.[10] During the siege of Buda however, the Ottomans had used 5 lb, 8 lb, 30 lb, 34 lb, 35 lb, 40 lb, 60 lb, 65 lb, 66 lb, 70 lb, 100 lb and 200 lb calibers.[10] The Austrians used heavy weaponry mortars too, for example the Habsburgs used 400 pounder mortars (which weighed in excess of 9,000 kg) that could fire shots weighing 224 kg, although these were rare.[10] The Ottomans never really had such large pieces to defend themselves with at the siege.[10] Asides from using these weapons, the Turks also used a significant amount of both regular and glass hand grenades; according to some sources the total amounts used consisted of between 52,082—54,106 grenades, but the numbers may have been as high as 84,000 by both sides, with the Turks having twice as many as the enemy.[11]

MASSACRE

Turkish Muslims

A Turkish woman (17th Century), Levni.

After the Europeans broke through, they ravaged the castle for several days, raping, murdering, robbing, destroying, burning, maiming, wounding, and slashing not only the men, but the women and children too.[9][n. 27] The castle's grounds were strewn with the bodies of victims; some were alive, but others were dead.[9] In a painting exhibiting the mass slaughter, the Austrians illustrated women shielding their children, whilst other women were covering their genitals from soldiers tearing off their clothes.[9] In the very same painting Buda's civilians are shown flushed with horror, with the Austrians also disarming the only defenders who could have stopped such barbarity; the Turkish Janissaries were hauled away into captivity and slavery.[9] This painting was used to celebrate the fall of Buda within European circles.[9] However the scenes depicting such cruelties were later wiped out and censored.[9] The brutal scenes were replaced with the Duke of Lorraine and his commanders overlooking the carnage instead.[9] Despite this, it was known that approximately 6,000 Turkish Muslims survived the sack of Buda,[12] but they too were taken away by the Europeans and enslaved, and even forced to rebuild part of the city that had been shattered by the firing of the Habsburg cannons.[12][13] Some of them were even later held for ransom.[12] Such "cleansing" was not solely isolated, but was state sponsored through legislation.[12] In 1670, for example, a Habsburg imperial ruling mandated the expulsion of all Jews from Vienna and the lower Austrian lands.[12] Additionally in Buda and city of Pest, all 120 mosques and minarets were torn down, as well as the city's only three synagogues were set ablaze.[12] Today, there are only a few surviving remnants left of Turkish Buda.

A Turkish woman (17th Century), Levni.

After the Europeans broke through, they ravaged the castle for several days, raping, murdering, robbing, destroying, burning, maiming, wounding, and slashing not only the men, but the women and children too.[9][n. 28] The castle's grounds were strewn with the bodies of victims; some were alive, but others were dead.[9] In a painting exhibiting the mass slaughter, the Austrians illustrated women shielding their children, whilst other women were covering their genitals from soldiers tearing off their clothes.[9] In the very same painting Buda's civilians are shown flushed with horror, with the Austrians also disarming the only defenders who could have stopped such barbarity; the Turkish Janissaries were hauled away into captivity and slavery.[9] This painting was used to celebrate the fall of Buda within European circles.[9] However the scenes depicting such cruelties were later wiped out and censored.[9] The brutal scenes were replaced with the Duke of Lorraine and his commanders overlooking the carnage instead.[9] Despite this, it was known that approximately 6,000 Turkish Muslims survived the sack of Buda,[12] but they too were taken away by the Europeans and enslaved, and even forced to rebuild part of the city that had been shattered by the firing of the Habsburg cannons.[12][13] Some of them were even later held for ransom.[12] Such "cleansing" was not solely isolated, but was state sponsored through legislation.[12] In 1670, for example, a Habsburg imperial ruling mandated the expulsion of all Jews from Vienna and the lower Austrian lands.[12] Additionally in Buda and city of Pest, all 120 mosques and minarets were torn down, as well as the city's only three synagogues were set ablaze.[12] Today, there are only a few surviving remnants left of Turkish Buda.

End of the Ottoman Jews of Buda

Jewish Citizens:— Hatred against the Jews in Europe had grown to hysterical proportions by the 16th century.[14][n. 29][n. 30][n. 31] In the original siege at Buda in 1521, where the Turks had decisively won against their European hosts, the Hungarian Jews several years later were blamed for it's loss; they were widely believed to have allied themselves with the Ottoman Muslim Turks.[14] However this could not have been more farther from the truth.[14] The Jews were in actual fact initally resistive to the Turks, just as they were to the Europeans. Only 20 out of the 4,500 Jews in 1521 were even known to have survived the siege with the Hungarians (however it is not clear whether or not the Turks had killed them or they were killed by their fellow Hungarians, or simply if they had fought and lost against both parties).[14] However, despite this, rumours were widely spread all over about by their supposed Muslim allies, as such was the loss felt over Buda.[14] Such was the distrust rooted in European society, that Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, only simply "tolerated" the Jews, but he was not concerned, or did not allow or approve of the Jews returning to the areas where they had been forcibly expelled from.[14] In all, attitudes towards the Jewish populace were indifferent at best, and murderous at worst. In the Ottoman empire however by contrast, they were virtually treated as equals. By 1686, the Jews were however totally allied to the Ottomans, for several reasons. In return for total state protection, autonomy, advanced living conditions, and secure social status the Jews paid the jizya tax;[15] and were totally happy in their treatment. This largely explained why about 1,000 Jews contributed to the defence of the castle against the Christian Habsburg invaders.[15]
Jewish communities fleeing to safer and more egalitarian Muslim lands from medieval Europe.
Another iteration of the anti-Jewish pogrom map. Note the new settled areas for the Jews were all virtually in the Muslim empire.
When the Europeans had broken through, the Jewish minority was massacred by waves of mass stabbings and looting; they had their properties and possessions plundered,[16] with survivors then sent to Vienna, Pozsony and Mikulov.[16] The richer Jews were however escorted to Berlin, where they converted over to the Christian faith and got married.[16] Hungary by the middle of the 17th century had had no Jewish communities left, except those in Ottoman areas.[16] Overall, the general attitude of the Jewish response to the fall of Buda can be summed up as "[f]or the Jews of Buda...the "liberation" of the city was nothing short of a total catasrophe. It meant death and destruction".[16] Since the Austrians had been given total freedom to loot and murder as many of the Turks and Jews as possible, Jewish and Turkish properties were ransacked, burned, and destroyed.[16] A significant part of the city was destroyed when arson attacks by the Europeans set it ablaze.[16] One synagogue was burnt, with all its Torah scrolls, and holy books ruined.[16] Approximately 500 Jews were murdered on the first day, and the other half were enslaved until a ransom could be paid.[16] The son in law of a famous Jew called the R. Ephraim Hakohen of Buda, Isaac Schulhof who died in 1733 left behind such descriptions of the horrendous suffering of the Jews throughout the event.[16] It took decades again before the Jews again decided to settle in Buda.[16] This was only done by the express permission of the European hosts, who only decided to let them in again as the Jewish merchants would be able to stimulate trade.[16]
Jewish communities fleeing to safer and more egalitarian Muslim lands from medieval Europe.
Jewish Citizens:— Hatred against the Jews in Europe had grown to hysterical proportions by the 16th century.[14][n. 32][n. 33][n. 34] In the original siege at Buda in 1521, where the Turks had decisively won against their European hosts, the Hungarian Jews several years later were blamed for it's loss; they were widely believed to have allied themselves with the Ottoman Muslim Turks.[14] However this could not have been more farther from the truth.[14] The Jews were in actual fact initally resistive to the Turks, just as they were to the Europeans. Only 20 out of the 4,500 Jews in 1521 were even known to have survived the siege with the Hungarians (however it is not clear whether or not the Turks had killed them or they were killed by their fellow Hungarians, or simply if they had fought and lost against both parties).[14] However, despite this, rumours were widely spread all over about by their supposed Muslim allies, as such was the loss felt over Buda.[14] Such was the distrust rooted in European society, that Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, only simply "tolerated" the Jews, but he was not concerned, or did not allow or approve of the Jews returning to the areas where they had been forcibly expelled from.[14] In all, attitudes towards the Jewish populace were indifferent at best, and murderous at worst. In the Ottoman empire however by contrast, they were virtually treated as equals. By 1686, the Jews were however totally allied to the Ottomans, for several reasons. In return for total state protection, autonomy, advanced living conditions, and secure social status the Jews paid the jizya tax;[15] and were totally happy in their treatment. This largely explained why about 1,000 Jews contributed to the defence of the castle against the Christian Habsburg invaders.[15]
Another iteration of the anti-Jewish pogrom map. Note the new settled areas for the Jews were all virtually in the Muslim empire.
When the Europeans had broken through, the Jewish minority was massacred by waves of mass stabbings and looting; they had their properties and possessions plundered,[16] with survivors then sent to Vienna, Pozsony and Mikulov.[16] The richer Jews were however escorted to Berlin, where they converted over to the Christian faith and got married.[16] Hungary by the middle of the 17th century had had no Jewish communities left, except those in Ottoman areas.[16] Overall, the general attitude of the Jewish response to the fall of Buda can be summed up as "[f]or the Jews of Buda...the "liberation" of the city was nothing short of a total catasrophe. It meant death and destruction".[16] Since the Austrians had been given total freedom to loot and murder as many of the Turks and Jews as possible, Jewish and Turkish properties were ransacked, burned, and destroyed.[16] A significant part of the city was destroyed when arson attacks by the Europeans set it ablaze.[16] One synagogue was burnt, with all its Torah scrolls, and holy books ruined.[16] Approximately 500 Jews were murdered on the first day, and the other half were enslaved until a ransom could be paid.[16] The son in law of a famous Jew called the R. Ephraim Hakohen of Buda, Isaac Schulhof who died in 1733 left behind such descriptions of the horrendous suffering of the Jews throughout the event.[16] It took decades again before the Jews again decided to settle in Buda.[16] This was only done by the express permission of the European hosts, who only decided to let them in again as the Jewish merchants would be able to stimulate trade.[16]

LEGACY

Legacy:—One of the most enduring legacies of the battle were the bravery of the Pasha's men, and the fearsome defence they had put up for months. Despite their inferior numbers and lack of resources, the Ottoman Turks and their Jewish allies put up a valiant defence killing more of the enemy than the entire civilian population of the Buda castle. The battle itself has parallels to the famed Battle of the Persian Gate (330 BC) fought by the Persians against the armies of Alexander the Great (where between 700—2,000 Persians held off 17,000 Greeks),[17] or Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) fought by the Spartans against the Persians (where according to Western legend an army of 7,000—20,000 were defeated by a force of some 70,000 Persians). Overall, for the Ottomans, it was an economic loss to have seen Buda fall, ending exactly 145 years of Ottoman rule in Hungary. Much of Ottoman Buda culture was lost in the aftermath, but some artefacts managed to survive vis-a-vis the looting; for instance a Qu'ran managed to survive the siege and was kept by the Christians and was thereafter donated to a British library in the 19th century.[18] Additionally, an ancient Turkish proverb resurfaced as a result of the loss; that "it will be retaken when another Mehmed rules",[19] referring to the successful conquests of Mehmed the First who in 1543 began conquering Europe.[19] A more important legacy for the pasha himself was left behind, as he is today recognised for his heroic defence of Buda, in that a memorial exists in Hungary today commemorating his last stand and his sacrifice for the people of Buda.[20][n. 35]
The Turkish flag used in the wars against the Habsburgs in Hungary, 1683—1699.[21][n. 36]
The memorial of Abdur Rahman Pasha in Budapest, Hungary, which has now become a tourist attraction.
Perhaps the most important legacy left behind for the Europeans was that of divine intervention.[19] The victory was by coincidence ended on September 2nd, where exactly 145 years prior Suleiman the First had conquered it in 1541.[19] A series of other coincidences lead to further reinforcement of this view.[19] The victory of Vienna, and the second victory at Buda "meant that nothing" had become "impossible".[19] Some years after the successful siege, rumours and legends even grew around the victory.[22] One of them was the re-appearance of the statue of Madonna, which was supposedly sealed away for 145 years by the city's Muslim hosts.[22] However an explosion during the siege revealed the statue to the Muslims who were allegedly "startled" at it's appearance, and saw it as "a contributing factor in accelerating the Christian victory".[22] However the statue attributed to the tale was actually created years after 1686.[22] One particular irony that should not be lost was that after the Turks had been fully been expelled from Buda, the Austrians turned on the Hungarians, choosing instead to colonize their former allies.[23] This lead to an internal revolt, and soon after war again erupted between 1703—1711.[23][24] Hungary was once again occupied by a foreign power,[23] and would not fully achieve it's independence until 1989; after hundreds of years of Ottoman, Austrian, Nazi-German and Soviet rule; though the Hungarians had attempted plenty of revolts and revolutions (which would often fail).
The Turkish flag used in the wars against the Habsburgs in Hungary, 1683—1699.[21][n. 37]
Legacy:—One of the most enduring legacies of the battle were the bravery of the Pasha's men, and the fearsome defence they had put up for months. Despite their inferior numbers and lack of resources, the Ottoman Turks and their Jewish allies put up a valiant defence killing more of the enemy than the entire civilian population of the Buda castle. The battle itself has parallels to the famed Battle of the Persian Gate (330 BC) fought by the Persians against the armies of Alexander the Great (where between 700—2,000 Persians held off 17,000 Greeks),[17] or Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) fought by the Spartans against the Persians (where according to Western legend an army of 7,000—20,000 were defeated by a force of some 70,000 Persians). Overall, for the Ottomans, it was an economic loss to have seen Buda fall, ending exactly 145 years of Ottoman rule in Hungary. Much of Ottoman Buda culture was lost in the aftermath, but some artefacts managed to survive vis-a-vis the looting; for instance a Qu'ran managed to survive the siege and was kept by the Christians and was thereafter donated to a British library in the 19th century.[18] Additionally, an ancient Turkish proverb resurfaced as a result of the loss; that "it will be retaken when another Mehmed rules",[19] referring to the successful conquests of Mehmed the First who in 1543 began conquering Europe.[19] A more important legacy for the pasha himself was left behind, as he is today recognised for his heroic defence of Buda, in that a memorial exists in Hungary today commemorating his last stand and his sacrifice for the people of Buda.[20][n. 38]
The memorial of Abdur Rahman Pasha in Budapest, Hungary, which has now become a tourist attraction.
Perhaps the most important legacy left behind for the Europeans was that of divine intervention.[19] The victory was by coincidence ended on September 2nd, where exactly 145 years prior Suleiman the First had conquered it in 1541.[19] A series of other coincidences lead to further reinforcement of this view.[19] The victory of Vienna, and the second victory at Buda "meant that nothing" had become "impossible".[19] Some years after the successful siege, rumours and legends even grew around the victory.[22] One of them was the re-appearance of the statue of Madonna, which was supposedly sealed away for 145 years by the city's Muslim hosts.[22] However an explosion during the siege revealed the statue to the Muslims who were allegedly "startled" at it's appearance, and saw it as "a contributing factor in accelerating the Christian victory".[22] However the statue attributed to the tale was actually created years after 1686.[22] One particular irony that should not be lost was that after the Turks had been fully been expelled from Buda, the Austrians turned on the Hungarians, choosing instead to colonize their former allies.[23] This lead to an internal revolt, and soon after war again erupted between 1703—1711.[23][24] Hungary was once again occupied by a foreign power,[23] and would not fully achieve it's independence until 1989; after hundreds of years of Ottoman, Austrian, Nazi-German and Soviet rule; though the Hungarians had attempted plenty of revolts and revolutions (which would often fail).

SOURCES

Further Reading

Footnotes

  1. ^
    1. Steven Beller (2006). A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge University Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-521-47886-1.
    2. Ivo Andri ́c (1 May 1990). The Development of Spiritual Life in Bosnia under the Influence of Turkish Rule. Duke University Press. p. 51. ISBN 0-8223-8255-5.
    3. Britannica Educational Publishing (1 June 2013). Germany. Britanncia Educational Publishing. p. 207. ISBN 978-1-61530-983-2.
    4. Misbah Islam (1 May 2008). Decline of Muslim States and Societies: The Real Root Causes and What Can Be Done Next. Xlibris Corporation. p. 386. ISBN 978-1-4363-1012-3.
  2. ^ In 1646, the Buda castle was reinforced with 15,000 able bodied men, but by 1686, that number had fallen to only 7,000. This consisted of about 3,000 janissaries, 1,000 horses, 1,000 Jews, and 2,000 civilians.
    1. Jaroslav Miller (11 February 2016). Urban Societies in East-Central Europe, 1500–1700. Routledge. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-317-00340-3.
  3. ^ In some sources cannons are referred to as "guns".
    1. John Mason Good; Olinthus Gilbert Gregory (1819). Pantologia. A new (cabinet) cyclopædia, by J.M. Good, O. Gregory, and N. Bosworth assisted by other gentlemen of eminence. p. 481.
  4. ^ According to Andrew Wheatcroft, there were only 2,000 survivors at the battle (originally there were only 7,000 inhabitants at Buda).
    1. Andrew Wheatcroft (9 November 2010). The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe. Basic Books. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-465-02081-2.
  5. ^ This was actually the sixth attempt made by the Europeans to uproot the Ottoman Muslim Turks. The first siege failed in 1542, and during the Long War several sieges were launched, namely during 1598, 1602, and 1603. There was also a fifth attempt in 1684 by Charles of Lorraine.
    1. Gabor Agoston; Bruce Alan Masters (21 May 2010). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-4381-1025-7.
    Charles' last expedition in 1684 lead to a catostrophic loss of 30,000—34,000 Europeans dead when he attempted to take Buda. It took him two years to gather another significant amount of men to lay siege to the castle again in 1686.
    1. Alan Axelrod (2009). Little-Known Wars of Great and Lasting Impact. Fair Winds Press. pp. 122–123. ISBN 978-1-61673-461-9.
    2. Joseph Haydn (1851). Dictionary of dates, and universal reference, relating to all ages and nations: comprehending every remarkable occurrence ancient and modern ... the origin and advance of human arts and inventions, with copious details of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the whole comprehending a body of information, classical, political and domestic, from the earliest accounts to the present time. E. Moxon. p. 301.
    According to another source, Charles of Lorraine lost 24,000 men and 18,000 cavalry to the siege in 1684, in a siege that lasted for 108 days.
    1. William Young (1 September 2004). International Politics and Warfare in the Age of Louis XIV and Peter the Great: A Guide to the Historical Literature. iUniverse. p. 432. ISBN 978-0-595-32992-2.
    Another source claims that 30,000 had died in the previous campaign.
    1. John BANKS (Miscellaneous Writer.) (1742). The History of Francis-Eugene Prince of Savoy ... By an English Officer, who Served Under His Highness in the Last War with France (i.e. John Banks). The Second Edition, Corrected by the Author. James Hodges. p. 12.
  6. ^ Perhaps what explains why the Turks wanted to retain a hold of the city of Buda, was that it produced a significant amount of wine. The city of Buda produced 25,000 gallons (or 100,000 litres) of wine every year from Ottoman records shown in 1562. The total tax revenue generated from wine making was equivalent to two oxen being given to the Ottoman government per household (this was 603 akce in 1562 and 585 akce in 1580). The annual income for the governors of Buda alone was between 800,000 to 1,200,000 akce in the 16th century, which exemplified an extremely high standard of living.
    1. Gabor Agoston; Bruce Alan Masters (21 May 2010). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-1-4381-1025-7.
  7. ^ When the Turks conquered Buda on August 29th, 1541, the Habsburgs launched a war in 1542, sending an army of 55,000 Austrians, Germans and Hungarians to recapture it. This siege failed. This was followed by the European failures in defending Eszztergom, Szekesfehervar, and Pecs, as all had been lost in one year in 1543. These victories ensured Buda was surrounded by a ring of defensive castles and strategic locations.
    1. Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800. BRILL. 5 January 2012. pp. 39–40. ISBN 978-90-04-22198-7.
  8. ^ In 1646, the Buda castle was reinforced with 15,000 able bodied men, but by 1686, that number had fallen to only 7,000. This consisted of about 3,000 janissaries, 1,000 horses, 1,000 Jews, and 2,000 civilians.
    1. Jaroslav Miller (11 February 2016). Urban Societies in East-Central Europe, 1500–1700. Routledge. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-317-00340-3.
  9. ^ In 1541, only 3,000 paid Muslim soldiers guarded the castle. By 1568 this had fallen to 1,600. The total population including these soldiers by 1686 numbered at between 7,000—7,500.
    1. Gabor Agoston; Bruce Alan Masters (21 May 2010). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-4381-1025-7.
  10. ^ However, one source claims that the number of soldiers numbered a total of 16,000 Turks, although this can be considered fringe, as this source was from the mid-19th century and does not corroborate with other sources and other consensus.
    1. Alfred de Bessé (1854). The Turkish Empire; Its Historical, Statistical, and Religious Condition: Also Its Manners, Customs, Etc. Lindsay & Blakiston. p. 99.
  11. ^ Lorraine had set up troops elsewhere to harass any advancing Ottoman troops in the Szolnoch area. Charles never fought the Ottomans directly however, as the Turks had refused to even bother confronting him. Therefore the Europeans were able to continue the siege. The Turks did however at times manage to get help into the castle, but at other times this venture failed.
    1. Giambattista Vico; Giorgio A. Pinton (2004). Statecraft: The Deeds of Antonio Carafa. Peter Lang. pp. 106–108. ISBN 978-0-8204-6828-0.
  12. ^ European chroniclers who documented the battle even robbed dead corpses and murdered injured Muslim soldiers out of spite. For example;
    Quote: "The vast majority of memoirists who describe battlefields in the wake of battle were similarly immune to the macabre. Johann Dietz writes how he and a friend went to visit a battlefield outside Ofen [Buda] (1686), but instead of listening to the preaching of the dead, they robbed the corpses and even killed a wounded Turk in cold blood".
    1. Y. Harari (7 March 2008). The Ultimate Experience: Battlefield Revelations and the Making of Modern War Culture, 1450-2000. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 80. ISBN 978-0-230-58388-7.
  13. ^ This was actually the sixth attempt made by the Europeans to uproot the Ottoman Muslim Turks. The first siege failed in 1542, and during the Long War several sieges were launched, namely during 1598, 1602, and 1603. There was also a fifth attempt in 1684 by Charles of Lorraine.
    1. Gabor Agoston; Bruce Alan Masters (21 May 2010). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-4381-1025-7.
    Charles' last expedition in 1684 lead to a catostrophic loss of 30,000—34,000 Europeans dead when he attempted to take Buda. It took him two years to gather another significant amount of men to lay siege to the castle again in 1686.
    1. Alan Axelrod (2009). Little-Known Wars of Great and Lasting Impact. Fair Winds Press. pp. 122–123. ISBN 978-1-61673-461-9.
    2. Joseph Haydn (1851). Dictionary of dates, and universal reference, relating to all ages and nations: comprehending every remarkable occurrence ancient and modern ... the origin and advance of human arts and inventions, with copious details of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the whole comprehending a body of information, classical, political and domestic, from the earliest accounts to the present time. E. Moxon. p. 301.
    According to another source, Charles of Lorraine lost 24,000 men and 18,000 cavalry to the siege in 1684, in a siege that lasted for 108 days.
    1. William Young (1 September 2004). International Politics and Warfare in the Age of Louis XIV and Peter the Great: A Guide to the Historical Literature. iUniverse. p. 432. ISBN 978-0-595-32992-2.
    Another source claims that 30,000 had died in the previous campaign.
    1. John BANKS (Miscellaneous Writer.) (1742). The History of Francis-Eugene Prince of Savoy ... By an English Officer, who Served Under His Highness in the Last War with France (i.e. John Banks). The Second Edition, Corrected by the Author. James Hodges. p. 12.
  14. ^ Perhaps what explains why the Turks wanted to retain a hold of the city of Buda, was that it produced a significant amount of wine. The city of Buda produced 25,000 gallons (or 100,000 litres) of wine every year from Ottoman records shown in 1562. The total tax revenue generated from wine making was equivalent to two oxen being given to the Ottoman government per household (this was 603 akce in 1562 and 585 akce in 1580). The annual income for the governors of Buda alone was between 800,000 to 1,200,000 akce in the 16th century, which exemplified an extremely high standard of living.
    1. Gabor Agoston; Bruce Alan Masters (21 May 2010). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-1-4381-1025-7.
  15. ^ When the Turks conquered Buda on August 29th, 1541, the Habsburgs launched a war in 1542, sending an army of 55,000 Austrians, Germans and Hungarians to recapture it. This siege failed. This was followed by the European failures in defending Eszztergom, Szekesfehervar, and Pecs, as all had been lost in one year in 1543. These victories ensured Buda was surrounded by a ring of defensive castles and strategic locations.
    1. Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800. BRILL. 5 January 2012. pp. 39–40. ISBN 978-90-04-22198-7.
  16. ^ In 1646, the Buda castle was reinforced with 15,000 able bodied men, but by 1686, that number had fallen to only 7,000. This consisted of about 3,000 janissaries, 1,000 horses, 1,000 Jews, and 2,000 civilians.
    1. Jaroslav Miller (11 February 2016). Urban Societies in East-Central Europe, 1500–1700. Routledge. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-317-00340-3.
  17. ^ In 1541, only 3,000 paid Muslim soldiers guarded the castle. By 1568 this had fallen to 1,600. The total population including these soldiers by 1686 numbered at between 7,000—7,500.
    1. Gabor Agoston; Bruce Alan Masters (21 May 2010). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-4381-1025-7.
  18. ^ However, one source claims that the number of soldiers numbered a total of 16,000 Turks, although this can be considered fringe, as this source was from the mid-19th century and does not corroborate with other sources and other consensus.
    1. Alfred de Bessé (1854). The Turkish Empire; Its Historical, Statistical, and Religious Condition: Also Its Manners, Customs, Etc. Lindsay & Blakiston. p. 99.
  19. ^ Lorraine had set up troops elsewhere to harass any advancing Ottoman troops in the Szolnoch area. Charles never fought the Ottomans directly however, as the Turks had refused to even bother confronting him. Therefore the Europeans were able to continue the siege. The Turks did however at times manage to get help into the castle, but at other times this venture failed.
    1. Giambattista Vico; Giorgio A. Pinton (2004). Statecraft: The Deeds of Antonio Carafa. Peter Lang. pp. 106–108. ISBN 978-0-8204-6828-0.
  20. ^ European chroniclers who documented the battle even robbed dead corpses and murdered injured Muslim soldiers out of spite. For example;
    Quote: "The vast majority of memoirists who describe battlefields in the wake of battle were similarly immune to the macabre. Johann Dietz writes how he and a friend went to visit a battlefield outside Ofen [Buda] (1686), but instead of listening to the preaching of the dead, they robbed the corpses and even killed a wounded Turk in cold blood".
    1. Y. Harari (7 March 2008). The Ultimate Experience: Battlefield Revelations and the Making of Modern War Culture, 1450-2000. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 80. ISBN 978-0-230-58388-7.
  21. ^ In 1685, a similar siege had ended on the promise of peace by the Europeans but lead to the murder of all of all Muslims and other civilians.
    1. Andrew Wheatcroft (9 November 2010). The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe. Basic Books. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-465-02081-2.
  22. ^ In 1685, a similar siege had ended on the promise of peace by the Europeans but lead to the murder of all of all Muslims and other civilians.
    1. Andrew Wheatcroft (9 November 2010). The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe. Basic Books. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-465-02081-2.
  23. ^ According to the Europeans themselves the Turkish Muslims were ferocious fighters; "We could not force the palisadoed retrenchment of the bisieged behind the breach...and our chief officers were all either wounded or killed by the continual firing of the enemy, it was thought convenient (for our) assailants to retreat, though they had fought like lions".
    1. Andrew Wheatcroft (9 November 2010). The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe. Basic Books. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-465-02081-2.
  24. ^ According to the Europeans themselves the Turkish Muslims were ferocious fighters; "We could not force the palisadoed retrenchment of the bisieged behind the breach...and our chief officers were all either wounded or killed by the continual firing of the enemy, it was thought convenient (for our) assailants to retreat, though they had fought like lions".
    1. Andrew Wheatcroft (9 November 2010). The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe. Basic Books. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-465-02081-2.
  25. ^ "[H]e could not dream of such a vile piece of cowardace; that he fought for the glory of his prophet and the honour of Musselmen; that he and the garrison were resolved to hold out to the utmost extremity and defend it to the last gasp of breath" that he would '"preserve it or lose his life, let the Duke come and wrest it from him".
    1. Andrew Wheatcroft (9 November 2010). The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe. Basic Books. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-465-02081-2.
  26. ^ "[H]e could not dream of such a vile piece of cowardace; that he fought for the glory of his prophet and the honour of Musselmen; that he and the garrison were resolved to hold out to the utmost extremity and defend it to the last gasp of breath" that he would '"preserve it or lose his life, let the Duke come and wrest it from him".
    1. Andrew Wheatcroft (9 November 2010). The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe. Basic Books. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-465-02081-2.
  27. ^ Some Turks did escape unhurt. After the battle, the Habsburgs found a Turkish Muslim; and in order to save his own life he converted to Christianity, and later even served in their army as a field marshall.
    1. John MURRAY (Publisher, of Albemarle Street, the Younger.) (1840). A Handbook for Travellers in Southern Germany ... (By John Murray III.) Second edition, corrected and enlarged. p. 265.
  28. ^ Some Turks did escape unhurt. After the battle, the Habsburgs found a Turkish Muslim; and in order to save his own life he converted to Christianity, and later even served in their army as a field marshall.
    1. John MURRAY (Publisher, of Albemarle Street, the Younger.) (1840). A Handbook for Travellers in Southern Germany ... (By John Murray III.) Second edition, corrected and enlarged. p. 265.
  29. ^ An example of this barbarous treatment was in the expelling of the Jewish court treasurer Emricas Fortunatus, which lead to an entire pogrom against the Jewish community. Not only that but the Croations and the Fuggers, and many other foreigners in Buda died.
    1. Carina L. Johnson (30 September 2011). Cultural Hierarchy in Sixteenth-Century Europe: The Ottomans and Mexicans. Cambridge University Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-521-76927-3.
  30. ^ Even up to 1880, the Jews were treated as second class citizens or worse.
    1. Rainer Liedtke; David Rechter (2003). Towards Normality?: Acculturation and Modern German Jewry. Mohr Siebeck. p. 309. ISBN 978-3-16-148127-7.
    Even in the United States in the 1700s, Jews were second class citizens.
    1. Norman Fiering (2001). The Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West, 1450 to 1800. Berghahn Books. p. 388. ISBN 978-1-57181-430-2.
  31. ^ In the 15th century, Spanish Jews were treated with utter contempt and forcibly removed from Spain by the Spanish Christians.
    1. Naomi E. Pasachoff; Robert J. Littman (2005). A Concise History of the Jewish People. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 123–. ISBN 978-0-7425-4366-9.
  32. ^ An example of this barbarous treatment was in the expelling of the Jewish court treasurer Emricas Fortunatus, which lead to an entire pogrom against the Jewish community. Not only that but the Croations and the Fuggers, and many other foreigners in Buda died.
    1. Carina L. Johnson (30 September 2011). Cultural Hierarchy in Sixteenth-Century Europe: The Ottomans and Mexicans. Cambridge University Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-521-76927-3.
  33. ^ Even up to 1880, the Jews were treated as second class citizens or worse.
    1. Rainer Liedtke; David Rechter (2003). Towards Normality?: Acculturation and Modern German Jewry. Mohr Siebeck. p. 309. ISBN 978-3-16-148127-7.
    Even in the United States in the 1700s, Jews were second class citizens.
    1. Norman Fiering (2001). The Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West, 1450 to 1800. Berghahn Books. p. 388. ISBN 978-1-57181-430-2.
  34. ^ In the 15th century, Spanish Jews were treated with utter contempt and forcibly removed from Spain by the Spanish Christians.
    1. Naomi E. Pasachoff; Robert J. Littman (2005). A Concise History of the Jewish People. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 123–. ISBN 978-0-7425-4366-9.
  35. ^ Quote: "The courage of Abdurrahman Pasha was universally acknowledged and praised. In some news reports, the letters exchanged between Charles of Lorraine, demanding the surrender, and the pasha, refusing this, was also included [in the] Day to day account of the siege of the renowned royal castle of Buda (Ghent 1686). The memorial of Abdurrahman Pasha, who heroically defended Buda up to his last breath, can still be seen in the Buda castle in Budapest."
    1. Kees Teszelszky (12 January 2015). A Divided Hungary in Europe: Exchanges, Networks and Representations, 1541-1699; Volume 3 – The Making and Uses of the Image of Hungary and Transylvania. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-4438-7307-9.
  36. ^ Description: "events, Great Turkish War, 1683 - 1699, Turkish flag, captured by King John III Sobieski at Vienna and offered to Pope Innocent."
    1. Great Turkish War Stock Photos and Images (760). Alamy. Retrieved October 4th, 2016.
  37. ^ Description: "events, Great Turkish War, 1683 - 1699, Turkish flag, captured by King John III Sobieski at Vienna and offered to Pope Innocent."
    1. Great Turkish War Stock Photos and Images (760). Alamy. Retrieved October 4th, 2016.
  38. ^ Quote: "The courage of Abdurrahman Pasha was universally acknowledged and praised. In some news reports, the letters exchanged between Charles of Lorraine, demanding the surrender, and the pasha, refusing this, was also included [in the] Day to day account of the siege of the renowned royal castle of Buda (Ghent 1686). The memorial of Abdurrahman Pasha, who heroically defended Buda up to his last breath, can still be seen in the Buda castle in Budapest."
    1. Kees Teszelszky (12 January 2015). A Divided Hungary in Europe: Exchanges, Networks and Representations, 1541-1699; Volume 3 – The Making and Uses of the Image of Hungary and Transylvania. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-4438-7307-9.

References

  1. ^ a b c d Michael Hochedlinger (22 December 2015). Austria's Wars of Emergence, 1683-1797. Taylor & Francis. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-317-88792-8.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac Giambattista Vico; Giorgio A. Pinton (2004). Statecraft: The Deeds of Antonio Carafa. Peter Lang. pp. 106–108. ISBN 978-0-8204-6828-0.
  3. ^ Christopher Duffy (5 October 2015). The Fortress in the Age of Vauban and Frederick the Great 1660-1789. Taylor & Francis. p. 346. ISBN 978-1-317-40858-1.
  4. ^ William Young (1 September 2004). International Politics and Warfare in the Age of Louis XIV and Peter the Great: A Guide to the Historical Literature. iUniverse. p. 433. ISBN 978-0-595-32992-2.
  5. ^ a b Jonathan Rose (2008). The Holocaust and the Book: Destruction and Preservation. Univ of Massachusetts Press. p. 269. ISBN 1-55849-643-2.
  6. ^ Alan Axelrod (2009). Little-Known Wars of Great and Lasting Impact. Fair Winds Press. pp. 123. ISBN 978-1-61673-461-9.
  7. ^ Gaston Bodart; Vernon Lyman Kellogg (1916). Losses of Life in Modern Wars, Austria-Hungary: France. Clarendon Press. p. 25.
  8. ^ a b Ludwig Freiherr von Pastor (1940). The History of the Popes: From the Close of the Middle Ages. Drawn from the Secret Archives of the Vatican and Other Original Sources. K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company, Limited. p. 224.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh di dj dk dl dm dn do dp dq dr ds dt du dv dw dx dy dz ea eb ec ed ee ef eg eh ei ej ek el em en Andrew Wheatcroft (9 November 2010). The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe. Basic Books. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-465-02081-2.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Gábor Ágoston (24 March 2005). Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge University Press. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-0-521-84313-3.
  11. ^ a b Gábor Ágoston (24 March 2005). Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge University Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-521-84313-3.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Jonathan Rose (2008). The Holocaust and the Book: Destruction and Preservation. Univ of Massachusetts Press. p. 269. ISBN 1-55849-643-2.
  13. ^ a b Yosef Kaplan (2008). The Dutch Intersection: The Jews and the Netherlands in Modern History. BRILL. p. 214. ISBN 90-04-14996-1.
  14. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Carina L. Johnson (30 September 2011). Cultural Hierarchy in Sixteenth-Century Europe: The Ottomans and Mexicans. Cambridge University Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-521-76927-3.
  15. ^ a b c d Jaroslav Miller (11 February 2016). Urban Societies in East-Central Europe, 1500–1700. Routledge. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-317-00340-3.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Raphael Patai (1 July 2015). The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture, Psychology. Wayne State University Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-8143-4192-6.
  17. ^ a b M. A. Dandamayev, A. Sh. Shahbazi, P. Lecoq (December 15th, 1986). ARIOBARZANES. Iranica Online. Encyclopedia Iranica. Vol. II, Fasc. 4, pp. 406-409. Retrieved October 4th, 2016.
  18. ^ a b James S. Storer (1817). History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Churches of Great Britain: In Four Volumes. Rivingtons. p. 1807.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Andrew Wheatcroft (10 November 2009). The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans and the Battle for Europe. Random House. p. 224. ISBN 978-1-4090-8682-6.
  20. ^ a b Kees Teszelszky (12 January 2015). A Divided Hungary in Europe: Exchanges, Networks and Representations, 1541-1699; Volume 3 – The Making and Uses of the Image of Hungary and Transylvania. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-4438-7307-9.
  21. ^ a b Great Turkish War Stock Photos and Images (760). Alamy. Retrieved October 4th, 2016.
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h Adrian Phillips; Jo Scotchmer (15 April 2010). Hungary. Bradt Travel Guides. p. 168. ISBN 978-1-84162-285-9.
  23. ^ a b c d e f Barbara Olszanska; Craig Turp; Tadeusz Olszanski (10 October 2013). DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Hungary. Dorling Kindersley Limited. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-4093-3418-7.
  24. ^ a b Charles Hebbert; Dan Richardson (1 April 2009). The Rough Guide to Budapest. Rough Guides Limited. p. 209. ISBN 978-1-84836-048-8.

EXTERNAL LINKS

F icon.png
Share this on Facebook!
Like Our Page!.
Reddit-icon.png
Share this on Reddit!
Visit Our Subreddit!.
Retrieved from "http://materiaislamica.com/index.php?title=The_Great_Siege_of_Buda_(1686)&oldid=2784"