The Eighteenth Century: the Westernizers 397
The first concrete proposition for the creation of a special, European-
trained corps comes from the author of Su’âl-i Osmânî. In case a peace treaty
is not achieved, the Ottomans should inspire zeal in their ranks and punish
undisciplined soldiers and deserters; yet the advice the Christian has to offer
is that they protect their border with 20,000 or 30,000 trustworthy soldiers,
trained by Christian officers (tavaif-i nasaradan mürettep), who would be
paid with the money that should be used for war (U116, E599). Such an
army should be collected through conscription, although it seems that this
was always considered as voluntary. Bonneval notes peasant boys were fit-
ter for conscription than urban dwellers, since they were used to hard work
and patience from childhood. More cautiously, Müteferrika first suggests
that the existing army could be reformed, and explains why this is possible:
since human resources abound, in three or four months the existing armies
could be transformed into disciplined bodies along European-style lines. In
a kind of concession to the existing order, he adds that the Ottoman army is
unique in giving generous pensions to old, retired, or ill soldiers and officers,
which makes it highly probable that experienced European officers may de-
fect to the Ottomans (Ş188). Müteferrika proposes various ways for encourag-
ing such defections, such as generous salaries and respect for the defectors’
religion. The Russian military reforms under Peter the Great are another
encouraging example.
What is very typical of these works is the almost total absence of non-
military advice. Müteferrika’s praise of geography (influenced by his admi-
ration for Kâtib Çelebi) apart, all his views on human society are traditional
commonplace advice, or (in the case of his description of polities) inserted
without any connection to the rest of the treatise. One may perhaps discern
a slight stress on sultanly absolutism, which is of course much more evident
in the praise of France found in the Risâla feva ’idü’l-mülûk: the king has ab-
solute control over justice (29a) and the administration, and he is his own
vizier (33a–35b). As for the Su’âl-i Osmânî, we must note an interesting di-
mension, namely its link with the early eighteenth-century praise of peace, as
seen in Na’ima’s and Nabi’s work. It is stated explicitly that, after the Treaty of
Karlowitz, [Amcazade Köprülü] Hüseyin Pasha had justified himself (as the
principal negotiator) on the grounds that peace was needed for the welfare of
the towns and of the treasury and the multiplication of the troops for future
revenge. The Ottoman interlocutor asks his Christian counterpart whether he
also believes that an interval of peace would be useful for an army to reorganize
its discipline and material, so as to be able to come back more powerful (U114,
E596); the Christian agrees, but remarks that the victorious side will dictate