Iraq doesn't figure a lot in the Horizon post roll because it's a subject that unfortunately generates more heat than light, and I expect that to continue. But I would think that everyone could agree with ex-marine Owen West that the increasing use of mercenaries by the US Army in place of its own fighting soldiers is a bad idea, for reasons of "morale deflation, gross monetary waste, tactical confusion, and direct competition for a tiny talent pool". Machiavelli had their number five centuries ago:
"Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand; and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.
I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.
And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free."
Posted by Alan Allport at July 30, 2004 04:55 AMThat's all true, but on the other hand the aristocratic military leaders in late medieval/early rennaisance Italy weren't so wonderful either. They engaged in a kind of stylized warfare that left them at a complete loss when a real army came calling. So I've read.
Mercenaries were apparently very useful to monarchs in the high middle ages, who relied on them to keep their rebelious nobles in check, who they would otherwise have depended on for their troops. (Making vassals of bishops and abbots was also effective for a while, since they could demand military support from them but ecclesiatics could not develop a hereditary claim to their offices. That hinged on the right of monarchs to control the investiture of church officials within their territories, though.)
Posted by: Alan Hogue at August 2, 2004 08:04 PM