"
We see the application of this truth in the period which we are
considering; particularly is it borne in upon us in the case of the leaders
of the Ottoman Turks. Serving as they did a despot of unlimited powers,
failure in the success of his arms was apt to lead to the immediate and
violent death of the man in command. If, therefore, precise instructions
were issued, they were, as a rule, carried out to the letter; as in case of
defeat an effort could be made to shift responsibility on to the shoulders
of the Padishah. Failure owing to initiative was certain of prompt
retribution; success complete and absolute would be the only justification
for a departure from orders.
Far otherwise was it with the Sea-wolves, who were a law to themselves and
to themselves alone. Should they care "to place it on the hazard of a die
to win or lose it all," there was none to say them nay, there was no
punishment save that of defeat. This it was that so often conduced to their
success. Despots as were such men as Kheyr-ed-Din Barbarossa and Dragut,
they were none the less dependent on the goodwill of their followers. If,
therefore, they decided on a desperate enterprise, they appealed to the
fighting instincts, the cupidity, and the fanaticism of these men. Should
they succeed in gaining their good will for the attempt which they
meditated, then all was well with them, and behind them was no grim
sinister figure whose word was death and whose breath was destruction.
Pages:
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297