| Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part of theOttoman–Habsburg wars | |||||||||
 The mainOttoman army led by theGrand Vizier with 80,000 men advancing fromSofia in May 1788 | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| Belligerents | |||||||||
.svg) Ottoman Empire | |||||||||
| Commanders and leaders | |||||||||
 Joseph II(d. 1790)Leopold IIErnst von Laudon#[a]Paul KrayMaximilian of MerveldtAnton ElsnitzEugène ArgenteauFranz LauerAndreas BallinloughHeinrich XV of GreizJohann SchmittKarl FutakHeinrich BellegardePeter BátorkézFranjo JelačićAntun PejačevićKoča Anđelković  Joseph ColloredoCharles of Pellegrini | Abdul Hamid I #Selim IIICenaze PashaKoca Yusuf Pasha | ||||||||
TheAustro-Turkish War, also known as theHabsburg–Ottoman War, was fought from 1788 to 1791, between theHabsburg monarchy and theOttoman Empire. During the conflict, Habsburg armies succeeded intaking Belgrade (1789) and liberating much of centralSerbia, also capturing several forts incentral Croatia and in thePounje region of theOttoman Bosnia. Much of those gains were lost in the later stages of the war, that ended by theTreaty of Sistova (1791), with minor territorial changes in favor of the Habsburg side. The war was fought concomitantly with theRusso-Turkish War (1787–1792).[1][2]
The war began soon after the breakout of the Russian-Turkish conflict. TheRussian Empire, headed byCatherine the Great, had been involved inprevious wars of conquest against the Ottomans, and the two nations were openly hostile. In August 1787, after "numerous Russian provocations" according to Hochedlinger, the Ottoman Empire declared war on the Russians. The Austrian EmperorJoseph II had concludedan alliance with the Russians in 1781, which (Hochedlinger) "obliged [him] to assist the Russians with his full might ... Vienna felt that it had to act promptly so as not to annoy the [Empress]. What Joseph had to make sure this time was that Austria did not come away empty-handed again, as overthe Crimea in 1783–84".[2]
In fact, Joseph was facing aserious threat to his rule in a distant portion of his empire, in what is now Belgium; as well aslong-term tensions with a powerful northerly neighbor,Prussia. Hochedlinger opines that "war could not have come at a more inopportune moment".[2]
Hochedlinger also judges the Turks also made a mistake in starting the war themselves. From the Russian point of view, "the conflict could now be presented to the European public as a defensive war against an aggressor. Turkish aggression also made it much more difficult for France to continue itstraditional role as the Sultan's protector against Russian rapacity".[2]
The Austrians entered the war in February 1788, though they had by now lost their best chance for an easy victory.[3] The slow preparations of Russia resulted in the Ottoman concentration onBelgrade. The Austrians relied on Russian support inMoldavia, which only began in late 1788, and Joseph II seemed to have been reluctant to fight the Ottomans. In July, the Ottomans crossed the Danube and broke into the AustrianBanat.[4]
Supply shortages hampered both sides, while disease struck the Austrian soldiers. As many as 50,000 Serb refugees flooded across the Danube, causing logistical problems for the Austrians. In mid-August, Joseph II dispatched 20,400 soldiers into the Banat. ASerbian Free Corps of 5,000 soldiers had been established in the Banat, composed of refugees that had fled earlier conflicts in the Ottoman Empire. The Corps would fight for liberation of Serbia and unification under Habsburg rule.[3][4]
Later on, the balance shifted toward Austria: the Turks were expelled from parts ofCroatia, the Banat, parts of Bosnia; and Belgrade was taken in athree-week campaign by the aging Field MarshalLaudon.[5]Habsburg-occupied Serbia (1788–1791) was established. The Austrian army also decisively participated in the victories ofCetingrad under command ofgeneral de Vins, as well as ofFocşani andRymnik de facto under the overall command ofSuvorov, andJosias of Saxe-Coburg conqueredBucharest.
At the front, outbreaks ofmalaria and other diseases played a major role. According toBraunbehrens, in the Austrian army during 1788 there were "epidemics: thelazarettos were filled to capacity, half the army was sick, and thousands of soldiers died". Joseph II spent most of the war at the front, and was one of those who fell ill there; he ultimately died of his illness after his return home (20 February 1790).[6]
Joseph's successorLeopold II was compelled to end the war due to the threat of Prussian intervention in support of the Ottomans.[7] In the final negotiated outcome, established in theTreaty of Sistova of 4 August 1791,[8] Austria's gains were "meagre":[9] Austria returned all the territory from its conquests save the small town ofOrsova and a strip of Croatian land near the Bosnian-Croatian border[10] (e.g.Drežnik Grad,Cetin Castle,Donji Lapac,Srb). The Russians won new territory along the Black Sea and forced the Turks to acknowledge previous conquests in theTreaty of Jassy of 9 January 1792.
For the Ottomans, the war was a salient event in a long period of national decline (seeStagnation and reform of the Ottoman Empire). In 1791, the withdrawal of troops and warships to Europe led to the overthrow of EmirIsmail Bey in Egypt; and his successors,Murad Bey andIbrahim Bey, established a regime independent of Istanbul.
Serbia had beenunder Ottoman rule before the war and was closely fought over, remaining an Ottoman possession after the final treaty settlement. The war was to have important consequences for the future history of Serbia. Rajić writes,
The wars of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries instilled in the Serbian consciousness the deep-seated expectation that only Austria could lend a helping hand [i.e., in liberating Serbia from the Ottomans]. This faith was largely shaken afterKočina Krajina and the last Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791), when it became clear that despite the Serbs' merits and heavy casualties in the fight against the Turks, the emperor abandoned them and made peace with the sultan. Since then, Russia superseded Austria in the Serbs' plans to restore their state.[11]
For discussion of the fate of Serbia during the war, seeHabsburg-occupied Serbia (1788–1791).
This treaty ended theOttoman–Habsburg wars. In later years, the three countries involved participated in different military alignments. Russia continued to fight periodically against the Ottomans during the 19th and 20th centuries (seeRussian-led wars against the Ottomans), but Austria did not participate in these conflicts.[12] During the long period of theNapoleonic wars, which broke out soon after this war, Russia and Austria were generally allies aligned against France. During theSecond Ottoman–Egyptian War, Austria, along withBritain,saved its old rival from early collapse againstMuhammad Ali of Egypt'sEgypt. Lastly, the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires fought as allies in theFirst World War, with Russia as a primary opponent; the Ottomans sent troops toGalicia and the Austro-Hungarians toGaza; with the end of the war both empires came to an end.
The war had serious negative effects on the economy of Austria, and derailed progress in creating a modern civil society. Calinger writes:
To have the time and financial resources to establish his domestic reforms, Joseph II needed stability in foreign affairs. It is a well-tested maxim that war stops reform. Joseph's predatory foreign policy, however, joined with that of Catherine II, led to a war against the Ottoman Turks from 1787 to 1790. This war devastated his domestic economy. The next year the national debt soared to 22 million gulden, and in 1790 it reached 400 million. As food prices and taxes rose and a new conscription was implemented, the mood in Vienna turned ugly. Bread riots erupted after the bad harvest of 1788/89 and the emperor's popularity plummeted.[13]
Solomon writes that even "the morale of the cultural elite was severely eroded; fears of conscription led many aristocratic families to leaveVienna, and there were widespread feelings of disillusionment with Emperor Joseph, a sense that he had betrayed the promise of an enlightened reform movement."[14]
