420 chapter 9

When Kuşmani turns to the issue of training, his argument is closer to the
reciprocity principle.75 Nothing can be wrong with learning more arts and
tricks, he claims, and there is no art that can be achieved without training; to
send an untrained army against a well-trained and experienced enemy would
be just like collecting a street-dog and sending it hunting. Moreover, tradi-
tion and old glories do not necessarily bring victories by themselves. Without
training and discipline, the janissaries are doomed to be defeated, no matter
how many they are in number, just as happened in Egypt. Kuşmani here nar-
rates a didactic story, according to which the secret for beating one’s enemies
is to always be one step ahead of them, i.e. to know the science of war better.
The French realized this and were victorious, while Ottoman sultans of old
kept pace with the infidels and introduced their weapons and tactics in time
(İ55). Later kings, on the contrary, succumbed to the temptations of comfort
and ease, turned to drug use, and led their whole people to an idle way of life,
with the result that their enemies surpassed them in the art of war. A kingdom
(her kankı saltanatın malik olduğu iklim), says Kuşmani, is like a ship, being in
grave danger if the captain cannot prevent its crew from drinking and amusing
themselves instead of remaining alert (a similar simile is used by Sekbanbaşı;
W250).76
Likewise, Kuşmani’s further defense of innovation is made in philosophical
terms. For one thing, he considers tradition worthy to follow only if it is still ef-
fective: answering the argument that the janissaries were organized and sanc-
tified by Süleyman the Lawgiver, Kuşmani observes that he did not give them
permission to become corrupted and to roam the streets like swashbucklers
(İ41: kaldırım kabadayısı). Then, in order to refute the dismissal of innovations
by his adversaries, he follows a more philosophical route (somewhat reminis-
cent of Vasıf Efendi’s views, as seen in the previous chapter): those who ne-
glect the “pursuit of the necessary efforts” (İ75: teşebbüs-i esbab) and claim that
“things must be done as in the time of [their] forefathers” fall into the sect of
fatalism (kaderiyye/cebriyye mezhebi). In contrast, each generation is respon-
sible for its fate; one has to fulfil the necessary prerequisites for one’s aims and
then leave the final result in God’s hands.

...

75 In his text on the 1806 revolt, Kuşmani also refers explicitly to the mukabele bi’l-misl prin-
ciple: Kuşmanî – Yıldız 2007, 72=136.
76 The ship simile was also used by Kuşmani in the speech that led to his exile in 1808:
Cabi – Beyhan 2003, 1:257.