The Eighteenth Century: the Westernizers 395
discipline of soldiers that makes them fight as one person. Then he proceeds
to the same argument about Muslim superiority: the Prophet himself had used
discipline and order (hüsn-i nizam) in his armies, whereas the Christian na-
tions learnt this art from their conflict with the Muslims of Spain. It is interest-
ing to note that, trying to explain the status of the Austrian nobility, Bonneval
compares it to the “freedom” (serbestiyyet) and “exempted state” (mu’afiyyet)
of the sipahi class. As traditional weapons such as swords and arrows began to
decline, he says, the Austrian emperors started to draw their troops from the
commoners rather than the aristocrats with the parallel aim of safeguarding
their “freedom”.33
Yet the argument of Muslim precedent is not enough for Müteferrika, who
describes at length the socio-economic benefits to be gained from military
order and discipline (Ş148–154). The purpose of order and discipline, he ar-
gues, is, obviously, to be victorious against the enemy; when two armies of
similar organization, numbers, and strength meet in battle, victory favors the
more disciplined side. This is evident in the case of the wars between European
states, which have more or less similar armies. Secondly, a state whose army is
well-ordered and disciplined secures its internal peace and well-being, while
rebellions and disquiet arise in a state whose army loses its order. Müteferrika
mentions at length the example of the Roman Empire, which collapsed due to
the disorder that appeared in its armies, with the result that even the mighty
title of emperor (imparator) fell to into disrepute until the Habsburg emperors
used it once more due to the power of their armies (Ş149–151). States that do
not comply with the necessities of the new military systems are doomed to
submit to others.
It appears that Müteferrika considered this connection of military power
with state power and internal peace a particularly strong argument. He claims
that if an army has a strict and disciplined hierarchy then the people of the
state will lead a quiet and easy life; since the ordering of the military is based
on scientific foundations, the soldiers keep their discipline even though they
differ from one another in character and nature. A disciplined army can pass
through a vineyard with no soldier touching a vine; thus, people feel secure
and follow their occupations in peace. Indeed, notes Müteferrika, reverting to
the well-known model of the four-fold division of society, people living in a
33 Yeşil 2011b, 215–216. On the contrary, the author of Risâla feva ’idü’l-mülûk emphasizes the
French army being composed of noblemen and the fact that, unlike the Ottomans, sol-
diers are not confused with their servants (14b–15a). Such passages point to my suggestion
that the text must be seen as an advertisement of French power, rather than an indirect
criticism of Ottoman realities.