History of Jihad against the Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians (1444 -1699)

by History of Jihad

12 Jan, 2008

The valiant saga of how the Poles Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians delivered stunning defeats to the Turkish Jihadis and under Jan Sobieski tamed the Ottoman Turkish wild beasts outside the walls of Vienna to ultimately drive them out of Central Europe.

----

When the Ottomans occupied most of Anatolia (modern Turkey) they found that their way into Europe was blocked by the surviving rump of the Byzantine empire, that held fast to their capital Constantinople - the gateway into Europe. For invading Europe, the Ottomans needed to overrun Constantinople, but that was easier dreamt than done due to the stubborn resistance put up by the Byzantines to defend their capital. To circumvent this obstinate resistance at Constantinople, the Ottomans devised a rearguard action and started their forays into Eastern Europe.

The Ottomans circumvent Constantinople to invade Europe and attack Byzantium from its rear

The first step of the Ottomans to work around this problem was to explore another way in to Europe by crossing from where the resistance was not as fierce. They moved down the coast and crossed the Aegean Sea in 1352.

__________________________________

The Battle of Varna was the first battle in which Polish arms crossed those of the invading Ottomans. Responding to the appeals of help from the Serbs and Bulgarians and a general appeal from the Pope to all Europeans to rush to the aid of Bulgaria which was being ravaged by the Ottoman Jihadis, the Poles joined in large numbers to challenge the Ottoman at Varna.

__________________________________

The Ottomans gradually sunk their claws along the coast brushing aside the Venetian resistance from the sea and advanced into the Southern Balkans. The first major clash with the Serbs was in present day Kosovo at the battle of Kosovo Polje. Here the Turks showed their true colors as Muslims and using deceit and cruelty they crushed the Serbs at Kosovo Polje in 1389.

After this defeat, the Ottomans started their incursions into neighboring Bulgaria and Croatia. To liberate their nation and repulse the Turkish invaders, the Serbs and Bulgars appealed for help from other European Christian kingdoms. In response the Poles, the Croats, Illyrians (pre-Muslim Albanians), and knights from as far as Spain and France had joined the Balkan Christians to oppose the Ottoman Jihadis. The combined force joined to oppose the Ottoman incursions at the Battle of Varna.

The Battle of Varna was the first time when Polish swords clashed with the Jihadis

__________________________________

At Varna, a mixed Christian army consisting mainly of Hungarian and Polish forces, but with detachments of Czechs, papal knights, Bosnians, Croatians, Bulgarians, Romanians and Routeni (Belarusians and Ukrainians), met with a numerically superior force of Ottoman Turks. The Hungarians were ill-equipped, and the promised support from Wallachia, Albania and Constantinople did not arrive. They also had promises from Venetians that their fleet would not allow Turkish army to cross the Bosphorus.

But fate had willed otherwise, and the 30,000 Crusaders were overwhelmed by 120,000 Turks. Over half of the soldiers from the united Christian army perished at Varna. This defeat opened up the gates for the conquest and occupation of Eastern Europe by Turks over the next several centuries.

__________________________________

The Battle of Varna was the first battle in which Polish arms crossed those of the invading Ottomans. Responding to the appeals of help from the Serbs and Bulgarians and a general appeal from the Pope to all Europeans to rush to the aid of Bulgaria which was being ravaged by the Ottoman Jihadis, the Poles joined in large numbers to challenge the Ottoman at Varna.

The Battle of Varna took place on November 10, 1444 in eastern Bulgaria. In this battle the Ottoman Empire under Sultan Murad II was challenged by the Polish armies under Ladislaus III of Poland (Władysław III Warneńczyk in Polish) and Hungarian armies under Janos Hunyadi.

At Varna, a mixed Christian army consisting mainly of Hungarian and Polish forces, but with detachments of Czechs, papal knights, Bosnians, Croatians, Bulgarians, Romanians and Routeni (Belarusians and Ukrainians),met with a numerically superior force of Ottoman Turks. The Hungarians were ill-equipped, and the promised support from Wallachia, Albania and Constantinople did not arrive. They also had promises from Venetians that their fleet would not allow Turkish army to cross the Bosphorus.

But fate had willed otherwise, and the 30,000 Crusaders were overwhelmed by 120,000 Turks. Over half of the soldiers from the united Christian army perished at Varna. This defeat opened up the gates for the conquest and occupation of Eastern Europe by Turks over the next several centuries.

But in spite of this defeat, at every step the Poles lent their arms to fight back the Ottomans, frustrating Ottoman designs to march through Central Europe into Poland and Prussia in the 14th and 15th centuries. The Poles also played an important role in sending the Turks packing when they laid their first siege to Vienna in 1529.

Turks attack Poland from the rear through the Ukraine

To checkmate the Poles, the Turks struck from the rear by opening another bridgehead up north on the Black Sea by attacking Ukraine in 1650 making their way towards the Polish district of Podolia by 1669. In those days a large part of Ukraine was a part of the Polish empire, as seen from the map below.

__________________________________

The Polish Empire when the Turkish Jihadis attacked Poland

__________________________________

In launching this invasion into Poland from the rear of the Polish domain, the Ottomans, teamed up with the Mongol-Tartars, who had by then embraced Islam, and had become fellow Jihadis.

Russian retribution against earlier Islamic misdeeds fuelled the Tartars to join the Ottomans in attacking the Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians Russians (Muscovites) and Lithuanians.

Although the Tartars were past their prime, the survivors of the once powerful Khanate at Kazan south-east of Ukraine nursed a grudge against the Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians and Lithuanians who had overthrown the Kazan Khanate a century earlier. The Tartars vividly remembered how they had been attacked by the Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians and Lithuanians and the stiff resistance they had put up to the Russian Crusaders, around the Kul-Sheriff Mosque at the center of the Kazan fortress.

All the Tartars had died in the battlefield as martyrs. Their leader Yadigar Khan was taken prisoner together with several persons in his retinue. At that battle the Muslims of Kazan fought until there had not remained a single person in the battlefield. And after the battle when the city was captured, a terrible massacre of the Muslims had ensued that constituted one of the valiant pages of the Russian retribution against earlier Islamic misdeed. Nobody was left alive among the men. The women and children were too were killed only some of the people were taken as prisoners.

However, a small warrior group got out of the city and they took shelter in the forests in order to continue their struggles. These were the ones who kept the memory of the Russian retribution alive and were now thirsting for revenge against their Christian tormentors. All the wealth of Kazan had then been despoiled, and all the mosques and houses were destroyed and incinerated. Thereafter the "Kazan Khanate" that had been established by Ulug Muhammed Khan in the year of 1437 and which existed for 115 years was abolished by the Russian Tsar, Ivan IV on the date of 15th October 1552.

__________________________________

Learning from the tactics that had been used by the Muslims against the Europeans in the Balkans since their first invasion in 1334, Sobieski did not rest after this victory, but pressed on, raiding for 150 miles into Muslim occupied Ukraine, capturing more outposts and driving out the occupiers. At that time he could have been able to recapture all of the erstwhile Polish territory that had been occupied by the Muslims (Ottomans and Tartars)

__________________________________

The Tartars of Kazan remembered this vividly and when they saw in the Ottomans move towards an alliance between the Turks and the Tartars, an opportunity to avenge the war with the Christians. Although the target of this Ottoman led war was not the Russians, it was targeted at the Poles. But for the Muslim Tartars, fighting the �infidel� Christians was one and the same, whether the �infidels� spoke Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian or the Lithuanian language, whether, they were of the Roman Catholic or Orthodox schools of Christianity.

For the Tartars, the Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians and Lithuanians were fellow Christians, and so they joined the Ottomans in their Jihad against the Christian Poles, as retribution for having lost their kingdom, to the Russians who too were Christian, but belonged to the Orthodox school. Ukraine in those days was divided between the Poles, Ukrainians, and Belarusians. The Poles ruled the Western part of Ukraine, and the Russians ruled the Eastern part. These parts were divided by the Dnieper river. The first Ottoman attacks on Poland was launched in 1669 and was repulsed by the Polish king Michael Wisniowiecki

After tasting their first defeat at the hands of the Poles, the Turks now allied themselves with their Muslim co-religionists, the Tartars. The Tatars and the Turks joined forces and again invaded Poland in the summer of 1671. Here they met their match in a man who was to play a seminal role in crushing the Turks on various front overt he next few years. This man was then a Grand Hetman (chieftain) of Polish part of Ukraine. His name was Jan Sobieski. Sobieski beat the Tatar troops at the Battle of Podolia using his favorite and successful tactics of massed artillery attacks against the fast moving Tartar-Ottoman cavalry to crush their offensive.

__________________________________

Wisniowiecki, the king of Poland who first defeated the Turks

__________________________________

Learning from the tactics that had been used by the Muslims against the Europeans in the Balkans since their first invasion in 1334, Sobieski did not rest after this victory, but pressed on, raiding for 150 miles into Muslim occupied Ukraine, capturing more outposts and driving out the occupiers. At that time he could have been able to recapture all of the erstwhile Polish territory that had been occupied by the Muslims (Ottomans and Tartars), but he could not do so, since his troops received no additional support from Lithuania. Sobieski's troops had to return to Poland.

In spite of this defeat the Turks did not give up their attempt of breaking through the Polish resistance in their designs to invade Central and Northern Europe. They launched another invasion in 1672. This lead to the next Polish-Turkish War 1672-1676. In the August of 1672 the Turkish Sultan Mohammed IV led 80,000 Ottoman forces, called Czambuls, into Poland-Lithuania. The Turks opened their invasion with a siege of a strategic fort at Kamieniec, on August 19. This battle was ferocious, where the Muslim desire to swallow more of Europe was met by the Christian resistance to save their homeland from these schizophrenic savages (Jihadis).

__________________________________

On October 14, 1672, Sobieski decided to raid the Turkish Czambuls. He had only three thousand troops with him, but he rose to the occasion like a fierce lion and marched with his 3,000 soldiers to the front in just nine days. He attacked the 20,000-strong Ottoman forces using his favorite guerilla tactics that he had used with the Tatar invaders. He split his forces and secured support from the local peasants to start a partisan war throughout the countryside to harass the Turkish rear through guerilla warfare.

With these tactics, he routed the much larger enemy force with several small raiding parties

__________________________________

According to a Polish chronicler Henryk Sienkiewicz�s description of this war, "Bombs, balls, and grapeshot were flying; at the heads of the besieged flew rubbish, bricks, plaster; smoke was mingled with dust, the heat of fire with the heat of the sun... The roar of guns, the bursting of bombs, the biting of cannon-balls on the rocks, the uproar of the Turks, the cries of the defenders, formed one terrible concert which was accompanied by the echoes of the cliffs. The castle was covered with missiles; the town, the gates, all the bastions, were covered... The castle defended itself;...it answered thunder with thunder, shook, flashed, smoked, roared, vomited fire, death and destruction, as if Jove's anger had borne it away."

Turkish capture Lwow (Lvov) on the river Bug.

But despite this valiant struggle the defenders of Kamieniec perished after seven days of ceaseless battle and the fortress was overrun by the Turks. On August 26, the Turks took the city of Kamieniec that was located at a short distance from the fortress. Lwow was next to fall. Turkish capture of Lwow (Lvov) on the river Bug left the whole of Poland at the Mercy of the Muslim invaders, and for a time it appeared like the Turks will take Poland in retribution. The danger seemed imminent as the Polish nobles who had thrown their might against the Turks at the battle of Kamieniec, were not in a position to muster additional troops to fight their invaders who were relentlessly marching deeper into Poland.

__________________________________

About the Battle of Chocim, one chronicler has written; "That was a memorable night - 'a night of torture and gnashing of teeth.' ... The rain became colder and colder, and cut more and more cruelly; the wind roared and howled... Clearly, if the Turkish Sipahis and Janissaries were to stand through twelve hours like this, the cold would lay them down on the morrow as grain sheaves are laid." To add to the discomfiture of the freezing Turks, Sobieski launched his largest thrust, at the coldest hour of dawn, surprising the Turks with his power after a night of small skirmishes; and broke through their defenses.

__________________________________

Then on October 14, 1672, Sobieski decided to raid the Turkish Czambuls. He had only three thousand troops with him, but he rose to the occasion like a fierce lion and marched with his 3,000 soldiers to the front in just nine days. He attacked the 20,000-strong Ottoman forces using his favorite guerilla tactics that he had used with the Tatar invaders. He split his forces and secured support from the local peasants to start a partisan war throughout the countryside to harass the Turkish rear through guerilla warfare.

With these tactics, he routed the much larger enemy force with several small raiding parties, succeed in releasing over 40,000 prisoners whom the Turks had taken. These released prisoners joined the army. But despite Sobieski's success, Poland-Lithuania lost significantly in terms of men, resources and land and was ultimately was forced to sign a truce with the Ottoman Empire, ceding to the Jihadis the southern part of Ukraine known as Podolia and promising to pay a yearly tribute called Jiziya (or Jaziya) to the Ottoman Sultan. This was a humiliating defeat for the Poles.

But this defeat stirred in Polish hearts an irrepressible desire to throw off the savage invaders This fire was further stoked by the repressive policies of the Turks. After this victory, the Turks began to ravage the country and launched sustained pogroms to convert the Christian population of the lower Dnieper to Islam. But in this the Turks met with stiff resistance and their repressive policies started a partisan guerilla war of the Slavs against the Turkish tyrants.

In this war the local Slavs, who were divided into Orthodox (Russian) and Catholic (Polish) segments united to resist the Turks. In April 1673 the Polish nobles declared that they would not pay the Jaziya tribute. When the first yearly tribute was due for payment to the Ottoman Empire in 1673, Michael Wisniowiecki encouraged the nobles to refuse to raise the money. In this they were supported by the Polish Sejm (parliament- actually assembly of Polish Nobles) which would not uphold the agreement, and Poland-Lithuania defiantly refused to pay the Jaziya tribute to the Ottoman Empire.

In response to this, the Turkish forces attacked Poland, but the nobles, instead of paying Jiziya to the Turks, supplied funds for their own troops instead to fight the Turks. The Polish army now had over 36,000 men and 65 cannons. It was the Poles who took the initiative to march against the Turks who were advancing on Polish territory. This was a bold tactic for the Poles, rather than locking themselves up in fortresses as they had done earlier at Kamieniec. In this war they were led by Sobieski.

The two armies met at a place named Chocim. This time the Turks fortified themselves inside the city to keep the territory they had gained. At Chocim, a castle along their communication lines, the Turks left 30,000 men, and Sobieski targeted it with a siege. He attacked Chocim with an equal force of 30,000, but using his usual guerilla tactics, divided them into five, to attack from all directions.

__________________________________

The Battle of Chocim in 1673 which foreshadowed the Battle of Vienna in 1683, was a huge victory, and Sobieski again was the hero. "The fortunes of the battle seemed at times to roll on to the right, then to the left, now toward the Lithuanian armies, now towards the Turks. Thousands of sabers cut... without rest; blades rise like lightening... At last, the [Turks] burst, as an overstrained chain bursts, and like single links men flew from one another in every direction, howling, shouting, throwing down their weapons... The immense camp was streaming with blood of the Turkish Infidels, mixed with snow and rain."

__________________________________

When he could not break through the Turkish defenses, he continued the attack into the night to wear them down. The freezing November rain, against men more accustomed to fighting in warmer regions, was also on the side of the Poles-Lithuanians. One chronicler has written; "That was a memorable night - 'a night of torture and gnashing of teeth.' ... The rain became colder and colder, and cut more and more cruelly; the wind roared and howled... Clearly, if the Turkish Sipahis and Janissaries were to stand through twelve hours like this, the cold would lay them down on the morrow as grain sheaves are laid." To add to the discomfiture of the freezing Turks, Sobieski launched his largest thrust, at the coldest hour of dawn, surprising the Turks with his power after a night of small skirmishes; and broke through their defenses.

In his writing, Sobieski himself attributes the victory to the mighty Hussars, cutting through the Turkish infantry; he describes the turning of the tide against the Turks in this war with these words; "in the very camp we were near defeat, the avoidance of which should be ascribed to the extraordinary resolution of the hussars." The cannons caused so much damage to the castle, the infantry had to clear a path through the rubble to make way for the cavalry. It was a huge victory, and Sobieski again was the hero. "The fortunes of the battle seemed at times to roll on to the right, then to the left, now toward the Lithuanian armies, now towards the Turks. Thousands of sabers cut... without rest; blades rise like lightening... At last, the [Turks] burst, as an overstrained chain bursts, and like single links men flew from one another in every direction, howling, shouting, throwing down their weapons... The immense camp was streaming with blood of the Turkish Infidels, mixed with snow and rain."

After this victory, as usual for his nature of beating the invader fully, Sobieski wanted to press on and capture more strongholds now that the Turks were retreating. However, as before, he got no support. The Lithuanian army did not come forth to provide support because their leader, Michael Pac, was Sobieski's rival and did not want to aid in his heroics. Furthermore, payment for salaries to the Polish soldiers was delayed which caused many men to desert. Hence Sobieski was forced to return to Poland-Lithuania.

In addition to this, on November 11th 1673 King Wisniowiecki left for his heavenly abode. Wisniowiecki did not even receive word of Sobieski's victory at Chocim; he died before the news arrived. The death of this valiant Polish king opened up the way for John Sobieski to ascend the throne of Poland as Sobieski III and he reigned from 1674 to 1696.

__________________________________

In September 1676 the Turks invaded Poland-Lithuania again with over 40,000 men, most of them Tatars. With only 8,000 soldiers the Poles held them at their camp near Zurawno for nearly three weeks, until October 14 1676

__________________________________

John Sobieski, the famous war leader, was a popular candidate for king of Poland-Lithuania after the death of Michael Wisniowiecki. In 1668, Sobieski had been crowned the Grand Hetman of the Polish army in recognition for his skillful counterattack on the Turks. So when King Michael Wisniowiecki died in 1673, Sobieski was a popular noble with a strong backing of the conservative army. He was elected the new king of Poland-Lithuania on May 19, 1674, and his 22 year reign was strong and filled with aggressive military campaigns against the Turks.

As king, Sobieski strengthened Polish-Lithuanian army. He reformed the military, creating a light cavalry composed of burghers - it was less expensive and more mobile than the hussars. He also increased the infantry by recruiting peasants. Sobieski's goal was to create a professional standing army. Sobeiski�s mettle was soon put to test. Sobieski had gained fame from his defeat of the Turkish army in 1673, but the Turks still retained Podolia. As one of his first acts as king, Sobieski sent troops to regain the territory.

The Turkish troops were in Ukraine, and Sobieski had the advantage that hostilities had ceased for awhile. He took his army around to the Turks' rear and was about to launch a surprise attack and massacre the entire Turkish garrison. However, some of his troops anxiously started the attack early and gave the surprise away; the Turks retreated.

With this victory, he advanced on Lwow (Lvov) on August 24, 1675. At the Battle of Lwow, the Turks brought 200,000 soldiers into Poland-Lithuania. Sobieski had trouble mustering his additional troops as most of his regular troops were camped at Lwow. And the Turks, to further impede the gathering of Polish forces, sent 20,000 men to engage the defenders before they could receive reinforcement and begin to gather in strength.

__________________________________

Following defeats on the battlefield, the Turks turned their wrath on the civilian population. The Turks attacked cities along their retreat. The city of Trembowl managed to withstand attacks with few soldiers and 200 armed townspeople. They kept the Turks busy long enough for Sobieski's forces to arrive and rout the Turks from the rear. Despite the successes, Sobieski once again was faced with little support from Poland-Lithuania; the nobles jealous of his success, refused to sponsor a larger army.

__________________________________

However, Sobieski fought them with 5,000 men. Finally, the Polish reinforcements arrived and 32,000 more Poles sent 200,000 Turks into retreat!

Following this rout, the Turks turned their wrath on the civilian population. The Turks attacked cities along their retreat. The city of Trembowl managed to withstand attacks with few soldiers and 200 armed townspeople. They kept the Turks busy long enough for Sobieski's forces to arrive and rout the Turks from the rear. Despite the successes, Sobieski once again was faced with little support from Poland-Lithuania; the nobles jealous of his success, refused to sponsor a larger army.

The internal politics of the European powers were proving disastrous for the making of a broad Anti-Turkish Alliance.

To overcome this fickle support from his own country�s nobility, Sobieski sought an alliance with Alliance with France. His wife was a member of the Borbon royal family of France named Marie Casimir d'Arquien. Because of her, Sobieski's alliance with France was cemented.

In the secret alliance, Sobieski was to attack Bradenburg then a Habsburg (Austrian) domain and in return France was going to attack the Ottoman Empire and retrieve Podolia for Poland-Lithuania. The nobility of Poland-Lithuania, however, were not interested in fighting against Bradenburg in alliance with France; so they concentrated their troops on attacking the Ottoman Empire.

With the French alliance in doubt, Sobieski eventually had to look out for other allies to protect his country's interests and the larger interests of Christendom. So he entered an anti-Turkish alliance with the Hapsburgs of Austria, France's long-standing enemy. These internal politics of the European powers were proving disastrous for the making of a broad Anti-Turkish Alliance.

__________________________________

By 1680, after ceaseless wars with the Ottomans for over three decades, Poland-Lithuania had been reduced to half Its size. But for these victories, the Turks paid heavily in terms of lives lost of hundreds of thousands of its warriors and this strain was making further incursions into Poland and Russia unattractive. �Propugnaculum Christianitatis�

After having waged costly campaigns against the Poles and having had to pay very heavily in terms of casualties, the Turks turned on the more lucrative of their Christian foes, the Habsburgs of Austria.

__________________________________

Taking advantage of this confusion, the Ottoman Empire attacked Austria in 1675. Poland-Lithuania, under their anti-Turkish alliance, gave troops to help Austria (ruled by the Hapsburgs). But with this move, they had to formally break the alliance with France. Unfortunately Austria proved to be a fickle-minded and weak ally, not pulling their weight in battles with the Ottoman Empire and even conniving against Poland-Lithuania to limit their power to conclude a separate peace with the Ottoman Turks. The wily Ottoman Jihadis used these divisions in the European powers to the hilt and made further inroads into both Poland and Austria.

In September 1676 the Turks invaded Poland-Lithuania again with over 40,000 men, most of them Tatars. With only 8,000 soldiers the Poles held them at their camp near Zurawno for nearly three weeks, until October 14 1676.

The Turks finally called for peace after Zurawno. While they kept most of the territory they had gained, including Podolia, but they pledged to end further attacks and released most of the prisoners they had taken.

By 1680, after ceaseless wars with the Ottomans for over three decades, Poland-Lithuania had been reduced to half Its size. But for these victories, the Turks paid heavily in terms of lives lost of hundreds of thousands of its warriors and this strain was making further incursions into Poland and Russia unattractive. �Propugnaculum Christianitatis�

After having waged costly campaigns against the Poles and having had to pay very heavily in terms of casualties, the Turks turned on the more lucrative of their Christian foes, the Habsburgs of Austria. The Muslim invaders reached the walls of Vienna in 1683 and wasted no time in laying siege to the city.

The Jihadis besiege Vienna but Polish Heroism saves the day

The Turks after overrunning Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, and Southern Poland now lunged at the heart of Central Europe by repeatedly attacking Cracow and Vienna. They focused on Vienna as it was the major city, the capture of which would open their advance into Poland and Germany. Sensing the danger, in the winter of 1682-3, Poland, Prussia (Germany) and Austria came to an agreement providing for joint action against a Turkish invasion and promising relief in case of a direct attack on Vienna or Cracow. The threat of Turkish attack could not have been more real. A Turkish army of over 140,000 men started marching north in March of 1683, and arrived before the walls of Vienna on July 14, 1683.

__________________________________

Following his agreement in the treaty and the appeal of the Pope, Sobieski marched to Vienna with an army of about 30,000 men. Sobieski said that his purpose for going to Vienna was "to proceed to the Holy War, and with God's help to give back the old freedom to besieged Vienna, and thereby help wavering Christendom."

__________________________________

Since about March that year the Turks were preparing for an attack on the Hapsburg capital, Vienna, and were gathering their forces together rather rapidly. By June, they had invaded Austria, and King Leopold and his court fled to Passau. On July 14, the Turks reached Vienna. They laid siege to the great city. One of the disadvantages that the Turks had was that they did not have sufficient heavy artillery. The defenders fought bravely but their food supply and their ammunition were growing low. The Turks had made some breaches in the walls but their effort was hindered by the barricades erected by the people of Vienna.

Pope appeals to the Poles and Austrians to unite to defeat the Turkish infidels

Earlier that year on March 31, 1683, King John III had signed the Treaty of Warsaw with the Holy Roman (Austrian) Emperor Leopold. In this treaty, it was agreed for the Poles and the Austrians to come to one's aid if the Turks attacked either Krakow or Vienna. Following his agreement in the treaty and the appeal of the Pope, Sobieski marched to Vienna with an army of about 30,000 men. Sobieski said that his purpose for going to Vienna was "to proceed to the Holy War, and with God's help to give back the old freedom to besieged Vienna, and thereby help wavering Christendom."

Kara Mustapha Pasha lead an Ottoman force of 140,000 against Vienna, defended by 11,000. The Viennese surrendered their suburbs to the Turks and prepared for a siege to defend the fortified main town. Emperor Leopold had moved to the western regions of his Habsburg domains. While the siege (July 14th - Sept. 12th) made progress and the area surrounding Vienna was subjected to raids, relief armies were gathered in various regions of the Empire and in Poland (which had been a French ally and thus a Habsburg enemy, but was drawn into the Habsburg camp by papal diplomacy).

Vienna was a strong fortress, but by the end of August 1683, the city was in mortal danger of collapsing to the Turkish attack. Food and ammunition were inadequate, and on September 1, the Turks exploded a mine under the walls and captured one part of it. Outside the walls however the outlook was brighter. The defeat of a Turkish corps at Bisamberg allowed the concentration of the allied armies northwest of Vienna. Most importantly 30,000 Poles under their warrior-king Jan Sobieski had arrived.

Jan Sobieski, commanding both Polish-Lithuanian and Austrian/German troops, took on Ottoman forces threatening Vienna. He was also accompanied by his 16 year old son James Sobieski. The Ottoman had a cavalry known as "crazyheads" or Jannisaries who wore wings on their backs, and infantry composed of men who had been kidnapped as children from Catholic countries during previous wars - both forces were considered highly fierce and frightening.

__________________________________

A Winged Hussar. The merciless slaughter of the Jihadis by the Husaria, (Polish armored cavalry) saved Vienna enabled the Christian army to completely rout the Jihadis. The Husaria alongside with the cooperation of the infantry, played an important role in the victory. Sobieski with his Husaria charged toward Kara Mustafa's headquarters and mercilessly slaughtered all the Turks that he had at his mercy. Seeing this, Mustafa's army was demoralized. The legends that Sobieski�s earlier victories and his ruthlessness had built an aura of awe and fear in the hearts of the Turks against Sobeiski. And faced with another victory for their dreaded adversary, the Turks fled in panic.

__________________________________

Sobieski, who already had a considerable reputation against the Turks, assumed command. His plan was to force battle on the plains west of the city and annihilate the Turkish army, thus breaking the siege. The Turkish commander Kara Mustapha continued to focus much of his effort at capturing the city, therefore at the start of the battle only part of his army was prepared to meet the relief force. At four A.M. on the 12th of September 1683, the Austrians on the left wing moved forward and commenced battle, the Germans in the left center soon joined them.

As the Turks were preparing to counterattack, the Polish infantry emerged on the right wing clearing the foothills dominating the plain. By four p.m. the cavalry had moved up and prepared to charge. At five p.m. Sobieski ordered the charge. One German-Austrian and three Polish cavalry groups, 20,000 men charged down hill, echelon after echelon, led by King Jan Sobieski, straight for the center of the Turkish camp. As the Polish cavalry burst into the Turkish lines, the Austrian garrison in the city attacked the Turkish rear. The demoralized Turks and Tartars soon broke ranks and fled, and the battle turned into a rout. At half past five Sobieski entered the Grand Viziers tent and the siege of Vienna was broken.

Lessons from the Battle of Vienna - The merciless slaughter of the Jihadis by the Husaria, (Polish armored cavalry) saved Vienna

In this battle Sobieski completely routed the Jihadis with his Husaria, which was Polish armored cavalry. The Husaria alongside with the cooperation of the infantry, played an important role in the victory. Sobieski with his Husaria charged toward Kara Mustafa's headquarters and mercilessly slaughtered all the Turks that he had at his mercy. Seeing this, Mustafa's army was demoralized. The legends that Sobieski�s earlier victories and his ruthlessness had built an aura of awe and fear in the hearts of the Turks against Sobeiski. And faced with another victory for their dreaded adversary, the Turks fled in panic.

__________________________________

The one important lesson from the battle of Vienna that was the turning point of the second Muslim invasion of Europe, was that the Muslims can only be defeated by violent means. They only understand the language of blood and mass slaughter. And the day we re-learn today to use that language against Muslims and give up the delusions that we can make Muslims into democrats and civilized humans, can we start winning the war on terror.

The war so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a Phony War the way the Second World war was from 1939 up to 1940, till the Nazis turned the Maginot Line and invaded France via Netherlands and Belgium. Similarly, are we to wait for this Phony War on Terror to become a war in earnest only after the Jihadis nuke one of our cities?

__________________________________

In this retreat from Vienna, the Turkish army suffered heavy losses. This victory also freed Europe from the Ottoman Turks and their invasions and secured Christianity as the main religion in all of Europe. The one important lesson from the battle of Vienna that was the turning point of the second Muslim invasion of Europe, was that the Muslims can only be defeated by violent means. They only understand the language of blood and mass slaughter. And the day we re-learn today to use that language against Muslims and give up the delusions that we can make Muslims into democrats and civilized humans, can we start winning the war on terror.

The war so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a Phony War the way the Second World war was from 1939 up to 1940, till the Nazis turned the Maginot Line and invaded France via Netherlands and Belgium. Similarly, are we to wait for this Phony War on Terror to become a war in earnest only after the Jihadis nuke one of our cities?

In the Battle of Vienna, the Turks lost about 25,000 men (plus another 40,000 at The Battle of Parkany that followed). These 65,000 soldiers constituted the cream of the Turkish cavalry on the field, while the allies lost less then 4000 killed and wounded. Vienna had been delivered in the nick of time, since earlier that same day the Turks had exploded mines that had given them access to the city.

The Turks never recovered from the battle, while the Ottoman Empire survived for another two hundred plus years, from here on out it was merely a holding action. For Poland, this was her last great moment on center-stage when she saved Europe from Islam.

After the Battle Jan Sobieski entered Vienna in glory. The King and his Polish army had won lots of fame after their victory. Jan Sobieski III was not only looked upon as the savior of Vienna, but as a savior of the whole Europe from the Ottoman Turks

Vienna was a huge victory against the mighty Ottomans, and it was also the last time Poland-Lithuania would be famous for their military might.

The Battle of Parkany

But the Turks were still not out of the game entirely, although they were convincingly defeated at Vienna. They lay in wait for the Poles at Parkany on October 7, 1683 where, the retreating Turks regrouped and attacked the Polish and German troops celebrating their victory. They caught the Poles unawares at Parkany and broke through their cavalry lines. John Sobieski was nearly killed, but he escaped and regrouped his forces and rallied them again to attack the Turks within two days on October 9. This is known as the Second Battle of Parkany. And this time Sobieski trapped the Turks against a river and slaughtered them. Historians feel that the second Battle of Parkany was his greater victory, but Vienna was the one that gained him the most fame in History as the savior of Christendom.

The defeat of the Jihadi Ottomans at Vienna in 1683, was primarily a Polish victory. It marked the turning of the tide of the second Muslim invasion of Europe (The first being turned back by Charles Martel at Poitiers in 732). The Republic of Venice declared war on the Ottoman Empire in 1685; a Venetian force conquered Morea and Attica, with Athens.

The Imperial Austrian army also remained on the offensive and gained ground; Buda was taken, after a siege, in 1686; in 1687 the Ottomans suffered another defeat at Mount Harsan near Mohacs, Belgrade was temporarily taken (1688), but retaken by Ottoman forces in 1690; in 1691 Transylvania (in Romania) was secured by the Imperial Army. Then the Imperial forces were placed under the command of Prince Eugene of Savoy; in 1697 he lead his forces to victory in the Battle of Zenta; in 1699, the Peace of Karlowitz (named Sremski Karlovci in Serbian, and Karloca in Hungarian) concluded the war.

Nature of the Muslim threat

Very few non-Muslims are in a position to recognize the kind of threat that the Muslims represent to all non-Muslims. In the Muslim psyche, as dictated by the Instruction Manual of Terrorism � the Quran, the very existence of the non-Muslims is a provocation for the Muslims to attack. The fact that non-Muslims exist on this planet, and practice a religion that is other than Islam is looked upon as an injustice towards the Muslim concept of god and religion.

Thus as the very existence of non-Muslims, is a provocation, a mischief (fitnah), for the Muslims, as long as Muslims exist on this planet there can never be peace. The existence of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Animism is itself enough cause for the Muslim to wage war on non-Muslims till �all the religion is of Allah�s� as stated in the Quran.

So for all non-Muslim it is futile to seek peace with the Muslims, as the Muslims will always be on the warpath. The only sensible way out to save human civilization, is to battle this cancer of Islam, without waiting till it afflicts our body (read nation).

If we are to save ourselves, Islam has to be treated as a malignant virulent, infectious disease, and as in the case of any such disease like AIDS, Cancer, Bird flu Pandemic, etc., we should find out the antidote, cure for it well before it strikes us, and immunize ourselves against it in advance.

The only way to save ourselves from Islam is to find a cure and antidote against Islam before it strikes us. The only immunization against such a malignant virulent mental sickness like Islam is to eradicate it from the human minds completely and permanently. If this is not done, then this disease will keep attacking all segments of non-Islamic society, till the entire human race is trapped within the iron bars of Islam, that would then preclude all progress and free thought.

Many of us apply the criteria that after all it is human to err, no one is infallible. If the Muslims have made a mistake in the past, it is up to us to have a large heart and to forgive them in a spirit of forgive and forget. But by assuming that Muslims are like any other human beings we are bringing doom and destruction upon ourselves. This is so as the Muslims never forget their mission of converting the whole of humankind to Islam, at the pain of death. Their Quran compels them to do so.

A true Muslim is one who always tries to indulge in Dawah (Dawah is the effort of a Muslim to convert non-Muslims to Islam, by using persuasion first and if that fails, by using emotional and finally physical coercion). So it would be prudent if we go by our survival instincts and move against Islam by never forgetting what the Muslims have done in their past one thousand four hundred years of their existence, and work for the destruction of Islam. If we do not do this, they are bound by the Quran to seek our conversion to Islam, which if we refuse, will lead to our destruction at their hands. There can never ever be any compromise with the Muslims, as this will certainly be self-destructive.

The Communist are the friends of the Islam and the enemy of civilization.

In today�s context, those who are leading the chorus for a dialogue with the Muslims are Communists, leftists, and wide eyed liberals. Of these the Communists have an agenda to unite all those forces opposed to a free society based on freedom of thought and liberty within a civilized society. After having been deposed by the people of the former USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe, the members of the Communist parties and their front-organizations across the world are engaged in building a fifth columnist opportunistic alliance with the Jihadis. The Communists and Socialists are the real snakes in the grass in the War on Terror.

We need to guard against this alliance, we need to wean away any right �thinking communists from the Jihadis, we need to tell the communists, that whatever merits their egalitarian ideology would have, could be co-opted into the policy of a welfare state. Equality is a noble concept, if implemented intelligently, while leaving a scope for the human spirit of endeavor and self-improvement to operate freely in a multi-party democratic society.

But this is one thing, and the opportunistic alliance of the Communists with the Jihadis is another. Those communists who do not see the light of the day, and persist with making common cause with the Jihadis, would have to be considered to be the enemy and would have to be dealt with in the same manner as we would deal with the Jihadis.

______________________________________

Select Bibliography

• The Mummy, Funeral Rites & Customs in Ancient Egypt, by Ernest A. Wallis Budge, reprint of 1893 edition by Senate Studio Editions 1995
• The Twilight of Ancient Egypt, First Millennium B.C.E., by Karol Mysliwiec, translated by David Lorton, Cornell University Press2000
• Egypt in The Age of Cleopatra, by Michel Chauveau, translated by David Lorton, Cornell University Press, 2000
• Women in Ancient Egypt, by Gay Robins, Harvard University Press, 1996
• Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Source Book by Jane Rowlandson, Cambridge University Press, 1998
• The Chronicle of John Coptic Bishop of Nikiu (circa 690 A.D.), translated by Robert Henry Charles, reprint from 1916 edition, APA-Philo Press Amsterdam, Holland
• The Vanished Library, A Wonder of The Ancient World, by Luciano Canfora, University of California Press
• The Story of The Church of Egypt, Volumes I and II, by Edith L. Butcher, reprint of 1897 edition by AMS Press Inc, New York, N.Y 1975
• Coptic Egypt, by Murad Kamil, Le Scribe Egyptien, 1968
• Traditional Egyptian Christianity, A History of the Coptic Church, by Theodore. Hall Patrick, Fisher Park Press, 1999
• Muslim Extremism in Egypt, The Prophet and the Pharaoh, by Gilles Kepel, University of California Press 1993
• Ancient Egyptian Culture, published by Chartwell Books, Edison, N.J. 1998.
• Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict, by Obadiah Shoher
• Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries (Hardcover) by Paul Fregosi
• The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World by Srdja Trifkovic
• Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer
• Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam) by David Cook
• Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq
• Onward Muslim Soldiers by Robert Spencer
• Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'Or
• Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Yeor
• What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary by Ibn Warraq
• Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad by Mark A. Gabriel, Mark A. Gabriel
• A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
• The Great Divide: The failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West by Marvin Olasky
• The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims by Robert Spencer
• Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones
• The Koran (Penguin Classics) by N. J. Dawood
• Don't Keep me Silent! One Woman's Escape from the Chains of Islam by Mina Nevisa
• Christianity And Islam: The Final Clash by Robert Livingston
• Holiest Wars : Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama bin Laden by Timothy R. Furnish
• The Last Trumpet: A Comparative Study in Christian-Islamic Eschatology by Samuel, Ph.D. Shahid
• Unleashing the beast: How a fanatical islamic dictator will form a ten-nation coalition and terrorize the world for forty-two months by Perry Stone
• Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature (Religion and Politics) by David Cook
• Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle by Mark A., Ph.D. Gabriel
• The Challenge of Islam to Christians by David Pawson
• The Prophetic Fall of the Islamic Regime by Glenn Miller, Roger Loomis
• Prophet of Doom : Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words by Craig Winn
• The False Prophet by Ellis H. Skolfield
• The Approach of Armageddon: An Islamic Perspective by Muhammad Hisham Kabbani
• The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God by George Weigel
• Infiltration : How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry
• Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz
• Unveiling Islam : An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs by Ergun Mehmet Caner
• Perfect Soldiers : The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry McDermott
• Islam Revealed A Christian Arab's View Of Islam by Anis Shorrosh
• Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out by Ibn Warraq
• The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book by Ibn Warraq

---

Articles on this page have been posted upon agreement with the History of Jihad website administrators.

The History of Jihad site is brought to you by a panel of contributors. This site is coordinated by Robin MacArthur with Mahomet Mostapha and Naim al Khoury, New Jersey.

Other contributors to this site include professors and members of the faculty from the Universities of Stanford and Michigan (Ann Arbor), Kansas State University, Ohio State University, and the London School of Economics. We strongly suggest that this site be recommended as additional reading for students of Islamic History.

History of Jihad is against all forms of fanaticism – religious and non-religious. But the emotional appeal of non-religious fanaticism like Nazism, Fascism or Communism is not as pervasive as that of the religious fanaticism. When fanaticism and religion are mixed, we have a very potent and dangerous brew that can sustain itself for centuries unlike non-religious fanaticisms like Nazism and Communism which die out when the ringleaders are defeated.

While all forms of religious fanaticism are negative, Islam is the most vicious and the most pressing danger we face today. This site is dedication to expose the danger of Islam. We support other people taking similar efforts against other religion posing smaller threats.