Thread by @EMBurlingame

The Mercenary Problem - a thread

Throughout history the lack of loyalty and commitment to a cause beyond personal gain is a significant concern when it comes to employing mercenaries. The problem is most obvious when the mercenaries are confronted with a peer or superior enemy, with the problem manifesting in several ways...

1. Unreliable performance: Mercenaries prioritize their own safety and financial interests over the objectives of their employers. This leading to subpar performance, desertion, and even switching sides if the opposing party offers better terms.

2. Influence on conflict dynamics: The presence of mercenaries creates instability and unpredictability in a conflict. Their actions not always aligning with the broader goals of their employers, causing unintended consequences or even undermining a successful resolution.

3. Reputational damage: The lack of loyalty and to the bitter end commitment harms the reputation of those who employ mercenaries, as it's recognized as a sign of weakness, that the employer isn't worthy of attaining and sustaining such loyalties from fighting men.

4. Economic burden: The cost of hiring mercenaries is generally high due to the need for financial incentives, and can be significantly higher than maintaining a standing army. The use of mercenaries can also lead to heavy indirect economic costs. If a payor can no longer afford mercenaries, it often results in mercenaries leaving the conflict, demanding higher compensation, switching sides, or resorting to violence to secure payment, exacerbating the conflict and increasing economic and human costs.

In classical literature and by historical thinkers, several examples highlight the mercenary loyalty problem, showcasing instances where mercenaries' loyalty was questioned or proved to be problematic.

1. Machiavelli: In his seminal work "The Prince," Niccolò Machiavelli discusses the problem of mercenaries' loyalty. He argues that mercenaries are unreliable and dangerous because their loyalty is primarily to money, not to the state - Prince - or the cause they are fighting for. He claims that mercenaries are "disunited, thirsty for power, undisciplined, and disloyal." This view reflects the broader historical concern that mercenaries could easily switch sides if offered more money or better terms by the enemy.

2. Plutarch: Plutarch, the Greek historian, also criticizes the use of mercenaries. In his "Parallel Lives," Plutarch discusses the Battle of Pydna (168 BC), where the Macedonian King Perseus relied heavily on mercenaries. Plutarch suggests Perseus should have hired more mercenaries, implying that a larger mercenary force could have changed the outcome of the battle. The problem not only laying in questionable and purchasable loyalties but in the number of mercenaries required for a serious fight.

3. Hannibal's Army: Hannibal, the Carthaginian general, is often cited as an example of a leader who effectively used mercenaries. However, his army, while successful, was largely composed of mercenaries, an army constantly having to be replenished at great expense. This raises questions about the long-term loyalty of such an army, as mercenaries' loyalty is often tied to immediate payment rather than to a leader or a cause and as such mercenaries often simply walk away from any prolonged action.

4. Roman Empire: The Roman Empire provides several examples of the mercenary loyalty problem. The Praetorian Guard, a group of elite soldiers who served as the personal guards of the Roman emperors, were often recruited from the ranks of mercenaries. Over time, the Praetorian Guard became notorious for their involvement in plots to overthrow emperors, demonstrating the potential danger of relying on mercenaries for security. To say nothing of the contracting of mercenaries which would late sack Rome.

An example from American and British history...

One example of the British Empire suffering defeat due to having employed mercenaries can be seen in the American Revolutionary War. During this conflict, the British forces included a significant number of German soldiers, known collectively as "Hessians." These soldiers were hired to supplement the British military efforts against the American colonists.

The Hessians were not mercenaries in the traditional sense, as they were not motivated solely by financial gain. However, their status as foreign troops fighting for the British Empire played a significant role in the propaganda war. The American revolutionaries portrayed the Hessians as brutal mercenaries, which helped to rally support for the American cause both domestically and internationally.

The Battle of Trenton in 1776 is a notable example of the British Empire's defeat that involved Hessian forces. On the night of December 25, 1776, General George Washington led his troops across the Delaware River and surprised the Hessian garrison at Trenton, New Jersey. The American forces captured nearly 1,000 Hessians, significantly boosting American morale and demonstrating the vulnerability of British forces and their hired soldiers.

This defeat, along with other strategic losses and the high cost of maintaining a large army of mercenaries, contributed to the eventual British withdrawal from the American colonies. It highlights how the British Empire's reliance on mercenaries, in this case, the Hessians, played a role in their defeat in the American Revolutionary War.

Feudalism, as a social, economic, and political system in medieval Europe, did not fully remove the mercenary problem as we understand it today. Mercenaries were often required even during the feudal era. However, as the system was primarily focused on the relationship between a lord and a vassal, where the lord granted land (fief) to the vassal in return for military service and loyalty. The system was designed to ensure the availability of military forces for the lord without having to rely on mercenaries, while also always having forces whose loyalties went far beyond personal monetary gain alone.

1. Vassalage and Feudal Obligations: The feudal system ensured that a lord had a direct local military obligation from his vassals, which meant that a lord could call upon his vassals and their military retinues in times of war. This reduced the need to hire mercenaries as the primary source of military power.

2. Knighthood and Military Service: Under feudalism, knights were obligated to provide military service to their lords. This created a class of professional soldiers who were bound by their feudal obligations, reducing the reliance on mercenaries and who were loyal to the lands upon which their families lived and survived.

3. Economic and Social Control: Feudalism also provided a form of economic and social control. Land was a primary source of wealth and power, and lords held significant control over their vassals through the granting of land and the obligation of military service. This system of control reduced the need to rely on mercenaries, as vassals had a vested interest in maintaining their relationship with their lords and fighting to defend their lands for the sake of their own economic and social status.

https://x.com/EMBurlingame/status/1747099794927985128

From As Rome Burns: It had taken the bureaucratic feudalists, their pet and allied titled houses and thrones, more than four hundred years to brush aside the old ways, the rebelliously capable old houses. Four hundred years for the Gnostic Hermetics, bureaucratic-minded Resentfuls, to rise to ascendancy across all institutions. To make their push to brush aside all the old ways in which power was balanced. Old ways which didn’t prevent but at least blunted the worst of tyranny and usury, ensuring at least something sustained for future generations of the commons. Four hundred years to move humanity from the land to the factories, then to the universities, corporations and bureaucracies then into these and the many institutions of the dependency economy. Finally, into decrepit cities, urban blight, total and utterly controlled and dependent upon the priests of the bureaucratic feudalist state and religion. Slavery restored! shoulderinggiants.locals.com

I know a good number of immensely capable and dangerous men around the world who know how to, who have and who will fight. Not a single one of them is loyal to money nor will they sacrifice their family for a paycheck, nor even for immense wealth. It is one thing to get paid to go outside and to fight, knowing your family is safe at home. Men will do this. Real men, family men, will no do this if their family at risk at home.

As this all breaks down, the old ways will reassert themselves, the old feudalist ways of lord and vassal, knights and their obligation to land, people and lord. There's a reason the lord and vassal pattern has held as the dominant force in all civilizations throughout the vast history of all peoples. And those immensely few wealthy families - oligarchs - which understand and prepare for this, will be the only ones to survive.