In 1736 the Russians and the Turks went to war again in a continuation of their long standing emnity. The other Christian neighbor of the Porte (Turkish for empire), the Austrians, at first acted the role of peacemaker while secretely amassing an army of invasion (ironic that they accused the Turks of being devious). In 1737 the army of Charles VI invaded the lands of the Sultan and was quickly routed in Bosnia.

Two years later his Field Marshall Count George von Wallis faced the Grand Vizier Al-Haji Mohammed at Kroszka (also called Grocka) near the border of Bulgaria and Transylvania and after a 15 hour battle was once again beaten by the antiquated army from the East. Fortunately for the Germans, Thrkish military fortunes were not as bright on the Russian front and by the end of the year the treaty of Belgrade was signed which halted hostilities.

The Austrian Army in the Balkans

It is difficult to determine the relative fighting quality of the two armies. The Austrians certainly came out the worst in most of the battles and their army was the same one that would lose so convincingly in the upcoming War of the Austrian Succession. However, a case can certainly be be made that the problem was more in the leadership arena than with the actual troops (Wallis was made a scapegoat after the war).

For example, at Kroszka, Wallis ran into a major Turkish army while his army was deployed in road column and, deciding that he was only opposed by a tiny Ottoman holding force, charged ahead and soon found his ranks peppered by the flanking fire of concentrated Janissaries. His army took around 10,000 casualties (both dead and wounded) and eventually retreated to the fortress of Belgrade but the fact that they held out for 15 hours against determined Turkish assaults may say something about the fighting spirit of the German/Hungarian troops.

The uniforms and accouterments of this Austrian army were, presumably, similar to those of the 1740's and it may be that one reason that they were traditionally strong in the cuirassier arm is that the breastplate was particularly useful against the arrows and scimitars of the Turks. This is pure speculation on the part of this author, but it is true that certain old-fashioned items were used in campaigns against the Porte that had long since ceased to be used in Western Europe. These included the backplate which complemented the cuirassier's breastplace and the tailed iron helmets common to 17th century European armies ("lobsterpots"). These were worn at least as late as the Tlurkish War of the late 1780's (see Duffy, Army of Maria Theresa page 94).

David Nicole in his Osprey book, Armies of the Ottoman Turks, described an episode where a unit of Austrian cuirassiers defended a hill by "using their lances as pikes" (emphasis mine, author). Thus it is possible that the lance was also a weapon that was brought out in the event of an Ottoman campaign.

In tactics too, the Austrians used the antiquated (or forward looking, depending on your viewpoint) method of mass square formation to counter the "lava-like flow of the Turkish hordes" (Duffy Maria Theresa, page 143). Such formations were rarely used against European foes but the exigencies of battle with the Porte required specialized approaches against a very different enemy array.

The Ottoman Army

The army of the Porte at this period was essential similar to that which almost took Vienna 55 years before, and which, although definitely in decline was enjoying somewhat of a military resurgence that would culminate in late-century reforms. The infantry was anchored by the steadfast Janissaries who, armed with their long range though bayonetless muskets, were the elite of the Turkish foot and the only really regular infantry soldiers in the army (morale grade two and "rifle" armed in A.O.R.).

Other than this there were the bow armed Azabs, the matchlock armed Seymen, and the Christian levee (all grade one) who were thought to be so politically unreliable that they were not allowed firearms in battle and had to fight with the military accouterments of the middle ages. The Sultan's horse soldiers included lots of Asiatic feudal light cavalry (very low morale and not very reliable in combat - grade one, "mass' formation) as well as the heavier Turkish Spahi (horse soldier - still grade one but formed and with lance and shield). The only quality mounted troops were the Grand Viserial Bodyguard which had decent morale (grade two) as well as lances and shields.

Let The Washing Of Spears Begin

With this background, and using the rules "Warfare in the Age of Reason" this author hosted a scenario at "You Gotta Do What 'Cha Con" at Ferndale, Michigan in May 1992. The scenario was hypothetical and designed to be, hopefully, balanced.

As the action opened (see map) an Austrian Advanced Guard brigade of 2 infantry battalians, 1 light infantry Croatian battalian, a medium gun battery, and a hussar regiment had "bumped" into the Grand Vizer's army already deployed for battle. The Austrians frequently had such an Advanced Guard unit that usually included all arms but was heavy on light troops. The main Austrian army, including a siege gun battery, was a distance behind the advance guard when the guns of the Turkish forces opened up.

As the battle opened the Austrian Advanced Guard (AG) fought desperately to buy time for the deployment of the main force forming in their rear. The hussars of the AG launched a frontal charge on the lowly Azabs, who fled the field, but also contacted a Jannisary unit which was able to stop the impedus of the attack long enough for the Turkish guard cavalry to reinforce the melee and a feudal Spahi unit to hit the hussars in flank. This fight on the left center of the line was to ultimatly determine the action, but on the extreme Turkish left the Austrian Cuirassiers successfully held the light cavalry off. The Turkish light cavalry commander's plan was to hold one of his mass units in front of the cuirassiers on the hill while the other one slid around the flank and positioned itself for a flank attack. But alas, no amount of threatening, shouting or die rolling could convince these scum-class troops to move against the German horsemen and the result on this flank was a standoff since the cuirassiers were very happy on their hill.

The Ottomans Clean Up On The Right Flank

The heavier Spahi on the Turkish right had things their own way, however, as they wiped out two regiments of Hapsburg horse in a hard fought battle for possession of the big hill. They were unable to follow up their success as the Austrians refused the potentially exposed flank with an artillery battery and a good battalion of foot. To their right the Croats in the woods carried on a hot little firefight with a janissary unit that went on most of the day but ended without resolution (neither side broke). Around midday the main infantry of the Austrian center began to form up against the janissaries of the Turkish middle and another thunderous firefight ensued.

The Austrians Throw In The Towel

Back in the left-center, however, the Grand Vizier's guard smashed the Austrian right-center, routing 2 units, destroying 1, and capturing 3 unit standards. The charge eventually petered out after taking major casualtied from Austrian fire. The damage, however, was done. The Austrians were well over 25% casualties and with the loss of 3 standards and having 2 units in rout they failed their army withdrawal check and decided to yield the battlefield to their ancient enemy. The army of Charles VI withdrew. The forces of Islam had won the day. The cry "On to Vienna" was heard throughout the wargarnes room.

To The Victors Go The Spoils?

Historical note: The croissant, long associated with France, actually originated in the ovens of Vienna. The name is a derivation of "crescent" for the insignia on the Turkish flag and was created to commemorate the saving of the cityfrom the Turkish siege in 1683.

FURTHER READING

Duffy, Christopher, "The Army of Maria Theresa", contains, in addition to data on the Austrians, some anecdotal information on the Turkish forces and campaigns.

Calvert, Michael and Young, Peter, "A Dictionary of Battles (1715-1815)" contains capsule descriptions of the Austro-RussianTurkish War of 1736-39 including the siege of Belgrade, the

Ukrainian campaigns of Count von Munnich, the Crimean campaign of Count von Munnich and Marshal Lacy and the battles of Kroszka and Valievo. Also includes notes on the earlier and later Turkish wars of the 18th century.

Nicolle, David "Armies of the Ottoman Turks, 1300-1774" is an Osprey "Men at Arms" series which, like most of the books in the series is a good overview of the Turkish army with emphasis on how the Ottoman military changed over the course of five centuries. The gorgeous color plates by Angus McBride are absolutely mesmerizing.

Saxtorph, Niels "Warriors and Weapons, 3000 B. C. to A.D 1700" illustrated by Stig Bramsen. This Blandford color painting guide (good luck finding it) includes a section on the Ottoman Turks (plates 327-334) that slightly predates our period but nevertheless shows some excellent examples of the colorful dress of the Sultans' forces and his auxiliaries.

Chandler, David, "The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough". This outstanding book includes a few useful references to the Turkish army.

Mosca, Robert C. "The Ottoman Army at the Siege of Vienna" Part I and II in the "Courier" magazine, Vol. 3 Nos. 3-4, 1981-82. This pair of articles describes the Ottomans at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries and most of the information applies to our period. Very well done.

Wise, Terence and Rosignoli, Guido: "Military Flags of the World 1618-1900". This color reference guide has a very brief section (sadly no color plates) covering Ottoman standards and flags.

Cassels, Lavender: "The Struggle for the Ottoman Empire, 1717-1740". This is a good account of the diplomatic intrigue of the period with only a very limited amount of information on the battles.

"Peter the Great," a television mini-series of the 1980's has some all too brief scenes involving the Ottomans.