Khaldunist Philosophy: Innovation Justified 313
the money and gifts given to them by the dynasty. It is especially when these
remunerations become excessive that soldiers become used to a comfortable
life. They wish to imitate their superiors in luxury, with the result that they
often end up in debt and poverty. On the other hand, if the state increases their
salaries in order to match their expenses, its budget becomes overburdened
and consequently the peasants, the primary source of state income, are impov-
erished. Thus, the men of the pen and of the sword should be kept balanced,
with careful dispensing of gifts and remunerations to those worthy.
Some of Na’ima’s more specific observations on human societies are again
summaries and in many instances verbatim copies of sections of Ibn Khaldun’s
work. After the theory of stages that had been popularized by Kâtib Çelebi,
Na’ima introduces Ibn Khaldun’s notion of nomadism versus settled civiliza-
tion (buduv ü hazar) as a factor influencing the course of history (N I:44–46;
Ip I:33–34). The “savage peoples” (ümem-i vahşiyye) are stronger than others,
he argues, as might and courage are stronger in a savage and nomadic exis-
tence; because they do not know the hindrances of ease and comfort, they
subdue other peoples easily. However, when they gradually become familiar
with pleasures and comforts, so does their valor and courage disappear, just
like when wild beasts are domesticated by man. Gradually, men tend to forget
their training in war and arms and start to entrust the protection of their souls
and goods to rulers as their proxies (müvekkel), and fighting with their enemies
to professional soldiers. As such, they stay inside castles and houses and make
a living under the protection of their dynasty (saye-i devlette); they ignore both
the power of the ease into which they have sunk and the value of the state
under which they live comfortably, and so they gradually lose their courage,
immersing themselves into the comforts of settled life (refh-i hazaret).
4.1 Peace as a Means to Avoid Decline
As already noted, Na’ima’s main aim in his introductory remarks appears to
have been to justify his patron’s Hüseyin Pasha’s much-criticized negotia-
tions that ended in the Treaty of Karlowitz. To this end, he uses two kinds of
arguments. One is traditional, referring to examples from Islamic history to
show that the Prophet himself, as well as other celebrated figures of the past,
concluded peace with the infidels in order to gain time and resources to later
impose a decisive victory. As Lewis V. Thomas showed, Na’ima wanted to em-
phasize that peace with the infidels could be an option under some circum-
stances, and was not automatically a sign of treason or cowardice. This kind
of reasoning must have aimed at those who were willing to use religion-based
arguments against peace, or even an imagined “old law” of the Ottomans (but
not, as Na’ima tries to show, of Islam in general): in all probability, these critics
can be identified with the janissary circles.