390 chapter 9
statesman and a Christian officer, conducted before the Treaty of Passarowitz
(1718); it was copied by the chronicler Es’ad Efendi (d. 1848), who notes that
it was written “in the form of a discussion by some wise men” (ba ’z-ı erbab-ı
ukulün muhakeme yollu kaleme alıp) and “submitted to Ahmed III through
the grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha”.25 According to the text, during the nego-
tiations for the treaty a Christian officer (zümre-i zabıtân-ı Nasara ’dan bir
şahs) had some friendly discussions with a notable from the Ottoman army
(namdarân-ı asakir-i osmaniyyeden bir merd). The text, which was submitted
to the sultan, Ahmed III, because it was deemed useful for the arrangement of
state affairs, is structured as a series of questions and answers on both sides.
The Ottoman officer first asks how the Ottomans prevailed in all battles with
the Austrians until the first siege of Vienna (1529), whereas from that time on
victory has usually been on the Christian side. The Christian’s answers describe
the rules of war as developed in Europe, and finally give advice on the diplo-
matic moves the Ottomans should make, explaining the alliances and enmities
in Europe.
This peculiar document has drawn the attention of scholars focusing on the
“Westernization” or “secularization” of the Ottoman society. Its absence from
any source other than Es’ad Efendi’s chronicle (composed in the 1820s) is puz-
zling and makes its authorship even more disputed. Şerif Mardin attributed it
to Damad Ibrahim Pasha himself, while Niyazi Berkes argued that it was “in-
spired by the recommendations of some European observers who happened to
be in Turkey at the time” and suggested more specifically a French officer, De
Rochefort, who, according to Hammer, had submitted a project to create an en-
gineering corps to the Ottoman court in 1717. Berkes made the bold hypothesis
that “the document was inspired, if not prepared, by Ibrahim [Müteferrika],
perhaps with encouragement from his former compatriots, for submittal to
his patron, the Sadrazam [Damad] Ibrahim Pasha”.26 However, in some ways
the text seems to be closer to Es’ad Efendi’s later era than to its alleged date.
One recognizes Müteferrika’s description of European military discipline and
organization, but also Vasıf Efendi’s ideas on istidrac, as well as Ahmed Resmî
Efendi’s ideas on the balance of powers (see below); finally, the idea of the
Europeans copying the initial discipline and order of the Ottoman army re-
flects, as will be seen, similar passages in Müteferrika’s treatise but also (much
25 Unat 1941; Esad Efendi – Yılmazer 2000, 586–606. See also Mardin 1969b, 26–27; Kafadar
1989, 133; Berkes 1964, 30–33; Schaendlinger 1992, 241–242 and 246–250.
26 Mardin 1969b, 26–27; Berkes 1964, 30–31 and 33; the suggestion of İbrahim Müteferrika’s
authorship of the text was also made by Unat 1941, 107 n. 3, and was also thought probable
by Schaendlinger 1992, 242 and 250.