5. Governments - Violence For Profit

Hello and Welcome to History on the Run and welcome to the final episode of the series “Violence for Profit”. Today, we’ll be talking about governments and Max Weber’s definition of a government. Then I’ll follow it up with the modern changes in government’s role and how the concepts and definitions have changed. However, before we get into this subject I should put forward a disclaimer. I will be talking about how being a soldier is a career, one that would not be possible without the monetary benefits. However, I will add that for many soldiers money is not the main issue. Patriotism, honor, and a sense of national duty are often what will make many choose a career that is not as profitable, more dangerous, and not so easy on the mind and body. In most of the cases money is of secondary concern. As such I’d like to read a section from one of my favorite military historians John Keegan in his book A History of Warfare and then say how I agree and disagree with his statement.
“Soldiers are not as other men – that is the lesson I have learned from a life cast among warriors. The lesson has taught me to view with extreme suspicion all theories and representations of war that equate it with any other activity in human affairs. War undoubtedly connects, as the theorists demonstrate, with economics and diplomacy and politics. Connection does not amount to identity or even similarity. War is wholly unlike diplomacy or politics because it must be fought by men whose values and skills are not those of a world apart, a very ancient world, which exists in parallel with the everyday world, but does not belong to it.”

Now, several things can be easily agreed with and several things can be disagreed with. For one, as I said above, soldiers often choose their profession for reasons that are not economic. War obviously is different than economics and involves different types of men with very different values and skills. However, economics, politics, and I would add culture drive warfare. A military is defined by politics, culture, and economics as much as they are defined by warfare. The US has a highly technical military because it has a strong economy and is therefore able to afford it. Politics also starts the wars, pays the bills, and shapes the culture of the military by forcing integration, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and other policies. Well, that’s enough of a distraction. Let’s get going.
In this podcast I want to build up the history of the concept of government and finally conclude with Max Weber’s definition of what a government is.
Since ancient times the concept of government was more about what type of government instead of what is a government? Plato, for instance, said in Republic that, "Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race." Basically, kings or rulers should first be philosophers in order to rule effectively. During the Medieval period the state was by definition the rightful property of the Ruler and was a part of the divine right of kings. During the Renaissance and the Enlightenment thought once more turned toward who should rule and no more questions were asked of what he or she was ruling. The rights of man, democratic rule, and other classic questions were debated long and hard into the night by society’s best philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Voltaire, John Locke, and others.

Then along came Max Weber and the sociologists who wanted to ask the question of what is a government? Let me give you Weber’s definition and then we can discuss its meaning and implications. According to Weber a government is an institution that has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a region. Let me repeat that: a government is an institution that has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a region. What Max Weber means by that can be explained by examining these situations. One, a gangster demands protection money. He beats up the man when he refuses to pay. A man is thrown in jail for not paying his taxes. A man is killed for treason. A group of activists cross the border into another country and kill someone. A country declares war and kills someone in a border skirmish. When a government kills someone, roughs someone up, invades another country, or anything involving violence it must be considered the legitimate user of that violence in order to be considered a government. If it doesn’t it’s simply a gang, a mob, or a rebel group that does not have the right to govern or use violence.
Let’s look at the first two examples in some depth. Both the gangster and government are using violence against another person for not paying them. Whether it’s called protection money or taxes is quibbling over a definition that involves the same action. The difference between the mobster and the government is that the government is viewed as the legitimate user of that violence. This was especially true before the Enlightenment when all the government did was “protect” you. Now the second part of Weber’s definition is that the government has a monopoly on this violence. Whether it is going to war, executing a criminal, or maintaining order on the streets it’s the job of the government and nobody else.

Now I’d like to give a basic counter to Weber’s theory as well as finish out the history of the development of the state and its concept. But before I get to that I want to explain how this fits into Violence for Profit. Today we live in a world with a Non-profit government. However, and this might seem weird, but that has not always been the case. Imagine that the government you pay your taxes to, the one that you pledge allegiance to and might someday be called up to fight and die for is a For-profit government. These have existed and will exist into the future.

Let us first examine India. India was for a long time ruled by a corporation. A corporation that fought wars, raised taxes, and was a government. How crazy is that? In one country they were a company, and in another one they were the government! It was an interesting process that led to this. The Europeans had a series of ports that they were licensed to trade in during the 18^th century, and until the battle of Plassey that’s all they were. Then the Black Hole of Calcutta happened. Now the Black Hole of Calcutta wasn’t a special anomaly or some world ending rift in the space time continuum or anything. We’d be dead if that were the case. No, the Black Hole was a room. It was a very small stuffy room where troops of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daulah, held British prisoners of war after the capture of the Fort in 1756. The Nawab was unhappy with the British East India company attacked the fort and put 146 prisoners in a tiny room. After one night in the room 123 of the 146 people had died. It was a travesty and the British East India Company was faced with two options. Withdraw from the very lucrative Bengal market or come back with a vengeance. While the rational decision might have been to back off we are not rational people and the East India Company attacked with a vengeance. At the battle of Plassey in 1757 the East India Company won a decisive battle and all of a sudden. Boom. They were the government. They proceeded to gobble up territory bit by bit until the entire subcontinent was under their control. They were a company and a government. A for-profit government! Now, eventually, after the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, 100 years after the beginning of company rule, the territory was taken over by the British Government. About 100 years later India would become independent.

There are plenty of other cases where a for-profit government was in existence. After and during the Cold War rulers such as Mobutu Sese Seko and recently deceased Muammar Gaddafi milked their countries for a profit and others such as Idi Amin actually got away and retired in luxury with the money that he made from running a government.

Now, on a side note I might point out that most modern governments aren’t good at what they do, if what they do is merely financially related. Many countries today have a high debt to GDP ratio, which is better than the alternative of having a high profit to GDP ratio.

So, history of government and whatnot. Well, if you asked someone who considered themselves a constructivist they would give you a very different version of the history of government.

Things that society creates have a constantly shifting role that is constantly morphing as society moves…..wherever it goes. You can’t say what a government is because the roles and responsibilities of what a government should do are changing every day. It may involve running a health service one day or maintaining an empire the next. The people may view the government as the property of the King or the property of the masses. One good example is that the EU, which is not sure if it’s really a government doesn’t believe it’s in the power of the European Central Bank to bail out floundering banks or countries and therefore the crisis continues.

When you look at America today you can see successive legislation and action that has expanded the government’s roles and identity. Each and every government expanded the powers of the government and its responsibilities. Even Thomas Jefferson, who championed a constitutional government began to break his word as he sent the navy to beat back the Barbary pirates, he purchased the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, and other things that expanded Federal power. The government’s definition really began to expand at the beginning of the progressive movement. When President McKinley was assassinated Teddy Roosevelt took it upon himself to expand the federal government. Some view this as good, some as bad. Teddy Roosevelt created parks, busted up monopolies and trusts, fought for labor, and quite a bit more. After Teddy Roosevelt was finished you really couldn’t say that government was the same as it was before.

Through the next two World Wars and during the Cold War we saw the powers of government expand by leaps and bounds. During Great Depression the New Deal came out and made the government completely and totally responsible for the economy. The alphabet soup of programs such as the CCC, the CWA, the FHA, the WPA, and Social Security were set up to create a Keynesian style increase in government spending and social safety nets to protect Americans from things they really couldn’t control. The Great Depression could have caused you to lose your job as any sort of economic change could and now the government was responsible for taking care of you during the bad times.

This was a massive change in the responsibilities of government. Now, to put you in the frame of mind of the average American during the time I’ll tell you about the before and after. Before the beginning of the 19^th century you were a tough, hardworking, thrifty American. You didn’t need to rely on anyone for anything and especially not the government. You were a farmer and you felt safe in your job. America had just conquered the western plains. America was young, open, and free. America was leaving behind the pain of the Civil War behind and moving forward into a new century.
Now, let’s look that American at the end of the 1940’s. He’s shocked. He has seen his life’s works go up in flames during the Great Depression and if he was a farmer in the west the Dust Bowl wiped out his crops and falling prices made it hard to compete even if his crops weren’t destroyed. He’s seen unemployment, he’s felt the pain as his children cried, but he had no food to feed them. Perhaps he fought in the First World War as a young man and then sent off his son in the Second World War. He fought Germans in the trenches and watched in horror as the bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor. He has come to rely on the government and to expect the government to be there for him in bad times.

Still, he’s confident about the future. America was untouched by the chaos and destruction of the war and is the only one that has its industrial base still intact. His son came home on the GI bill, got an education and things became…..normal as America entered the 50’s. The American begins to find that old self he had when he was a boy and the feeling of American Exceptionalism grows again. Still, his belief in government is still there. Johnson’s Great Society in the 60’s and the 1964 Civil Rights Act were perhaps the peak of this belief that government is there to help. During the Reagan administration the last thing you wanted to hear was “I’m the government and I’m here to help”. The defenition once again began to change. Now, today the battle for the meaning of government is still going on, but I won’t get into that. As historians get closer to today they tend to get more and more political, which I don’t really want to be….well…..at least not now anyways. You’ll get plenty of politics down the road I’m sure.

So, the point of this theory is that the nature of government is always changing. There is no defenition because the government of the 1930’s, 40’s, or 50’s are nothing like each other or like today. The theory holds some weight, but I like to view the Weber view as superior. All of these governments do share something in common, and that is that they have a monopoly on legitimate violence. Each one of them is in charge of dispensing justice and violence and punishing others who commit acts of violence/justice.

A History of Warfare by John Keegan

Politics as a vocation by Max Weber

Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India by Lawrence James

4. Mercenaries - Violence For Profit

Mercenaries.

Hello and welcome to History on the Run. This is the fourth episode in the series titled, “Violence for Profit”, and it is on Mercenaries. Each of these series will run for 5 episodes, and we have only one more left after this one. So….I had a few things that I want to talk about, but before we go to that I think that I should define what a mercenary is. While some might label Mercenaries as foreign forces fighting for another country I prefer to view mercenaries as a group of contractors independent of national combat forces. This would make groups such as Blackwater and other contractors for the US Army fall under mercenaries. Now, I wouldn’t say that the electrical contractors would be included in this definition and it would simply include independent combat units. Let me give some examples that exemplify what I mean by mercenary. In the French Army, even today, you can sign up to become a part of the French Foreign Legion. Now, if simply being foreign makes you a mercenary as some in the scholarly world would say then the members of the French Foreign Legion are mercenaries. I, under my definition would say that they are not. Why? Well because when you enlist you are trained by the French Army, you serve under the French army, and there is no way to switch allegiances. They don’t do it for money, but rather for citizenship and a chance to start over. Afterwards they become French citizens. They are a part of the French Army. So, what is an example of a mercenary? A good example of a mercenary would be those fighting in Hannibal’s army during the 2nd Punic War. They were not Carthaginian, and often came from the areas of Numidia, Iberia, or Gaul. The mercenaries would revolt if their pay was delayed and ironically enough the Carthaginians once had to hire a second mercenary army to defeat their previous mercenary army that hadn’t been happy with its payments and had decided to just loot the countryside instead. A mercenary is the Swiss pikeman, the Hessian fighting in the Revolution, or Xenophon’s ten thousand.

So, let’s start talking about when mercenaries have fought and what is their role in different societies, and what are some really cool stories. Well, mercenaries have been a constant in warfare, and would often come from the sort of backwater parts of the world. Now, in Western history we see a massive expansion in mercenary Greeks going abroad after the Peloponnesian War. Now, for those of you who don’t know what the Peloponnesian War is I’ll give a quick summery. In Greece, in the late 4^th century BC (which means below instead of above 50 because the years go from 30 to 29 to 28 and count down and from AD they start going up) there were two big superpowers: Athens and Sparta. Athens was a big trading and sailing country and Sparta had the best army. Best Navy vs. Best Army. The two states went to war and utterly crushed each other. Athens had these big walls, so the Spartan army was only able to burn and pillage the countryside. Sparta had this awesome army, so all Athens could do is do costal raids where they burn and pillage the countryside. The war basically was just a lot of burning and pillaging which wrecked the farming community. Each and every one of these Greeks were now expert fighters and they had no farms as those had all been destroyed. Now, if you remember your history you’ll remember that the Greeks had just shown the Persians off in two failed invasions. The Persians expected to run right over the Greeks, but surprise surprise! The Greeks had invented a style of fighting that was better than any other. They had invented the Phalanx. The Phalanx was a group of well armored men who marched in close formation with overlapping shields and a literal wall of spears. When the Persians encountered this with their shields made of woven brush and very little armor they were decimated. Now, in the future I might have to have an episode on the combat tactics of the Greek Hoplites, but for now that’ll do. Now, the Greeks, living in crowded cities, without enough food, and with the best military experience and tactics in the known world often decided to pick up and act as mercenaries in foreign countries. Now, when I say that everyone in Greek society knew how to fight I mean everyone. As the historian A.G. Russell states:

“Every young man in Greece during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. had to be a soldier or a sailor, whether he liked it or not, for the greater part of his life; we may recall that Socrates 'trailed a pike' when he was forty-five at the battle of Delium, and the records of those times certainly show that anyone to whom the life of soldiering appealed had ample opportunity to indulge his taste to the full.”

Now, this meant that everyone from the poet to the philosopher knew how to fight and probably had some bit of combat experience under his belt. This combined with the fact that fighting as a mercenary could get you wages equivalent to a trained artisan pushed a lot of young adventurous lads off to fight for gold, guts, and glory. There are a lot of historical instances of Greeks going off to help some king conquer some country, but the best one by far is the tale of Xenophon and his 10,000. Xenophon was a part of a group of mercenaries whose journey is covered in the Anabasis which is a good book you should all go out and read. Xenophon, the author of the work narrates how he and 10,000 other Greek mercenaries were hired to help Cyrus the Younger take the throne back from his brother Artaxerxes ll. The battle got started the with Greeks just destroying all in front of them. According to the sources only one Greek was wounded in the entire fight. However, Cyrus was killed by a javelin, so the Greeks were in a pickle as their guy who had a claim to the Persian throne was now dead. The Greeks, as all good mercenaries would do, offered their services now to one of the nobles of Artaxerxes named Tissaphernes. The Greek generals accepted an invitation to a feast, but were all killed. Xenophon, one of the lower level officers was elected along with others to decide what to do. They decided to head back toward Greece and fought their way through enemy territory and finally returned to the Mediterranean to the famous cry of “the sea, the sea!”

So, let’s move on in our history of the mercenary. During Roman times mercenaries got just as much use. Most notably during the Punic Wars the Romans faced a foe that relied almost entirely on mercenary forces for its army. The Carthaginians operated a large trade network that stretched over the entire Mediterranean. The capital of Carthage was actually a Phoenician trade city, but Carthage went above and beyond its origins as a humble trading port. The new growing powers in the West, Rome and Carthage, came into conflict over Sicily and fought a series of wars for control of the Western Mediterranean. While Rome used its own citizen soldiers to fight Carthage merely bought armies from the outlying regions. Most famous were the Numidian cavalry who were far superior to the Roman cavalry. Hannibal brought his army of mercenaries over the Alps including elephants and won a series of victories against the Romans. However, Hannibal was unable to crack the Roman alliance system and the Romans decided to strike against Carthage itself instead of trying to defeat Hannibal. This successfully pushed Hannibal off the offensive as he was called back to Africa. Scipio Africanus then beat Hannibal and his mercenary army and Carthage was basically crippled. Carthage would later be destroyed in the third and final Punic War. Its fields would be scattered with salt which killed crops and the city was forced inland so the once great city could never again become powerful through commerce.

From there Rome became the primary military power in the west as it gobbled up state after state until the Mediterranean became known as a “Roman lake”. The Roman military started off as a force of citizen soldiers, but after the Punic Wars the independent farmer was being replaced by a few very large slave estates. After a series of reforms the legions became professional instead of part-time soldiers. Slowly the Roman legions became less and less Roman and more and more German. The legions could be bought off in an attempt to become emperor and became more and more like mercenaries and less and less like soldiers. While they didn’t switch allegiances to another state they would often put themselves up for the highest bidder. Legions became bought and sold commodities that owed allegiance not to the people or the state, but oftentimes whoever could pay the most coin. The legions did employ mercenaries in their campaigns which often consisted of Germanic tribes. The mercification of the legions along with their degrading efficacy on the battlefield as others copied the legions war winning tactics are some of the reasons the Roman Empire fell in the West. The Byzantines would adopt new forms of warfare such as the horse archer and the armored cavalry to stay alive for another thousand years. They would also employ Vikings as mercenaries in their famous Varangian Guard which was an elite part of the Byzantine army and personal guards to the Emperor. Again the line is blurred as to whether they were mercenaries as they were an official part of the Byzantine military despite the fact they were recruited overseas. They often consisted of Anglo Saxons or Norsemen and were prized for their loyalty and would not easily break their oaths. During the wars against the Normans in Sicily those who were Anglo Saxon and whose families had suffered at the hands of the Normans were keen to get revenge.
An interesting concept that provided a large number of mercenaries in Europe during the medieval period would be the way property was doled out to sons during the period. William the Conqueror, the Norman who conquered England had a force that was primarily made up of younger sons of nobles hungry for a chance to find their own claim to power. Now they weren’t mercenaries, but it was a more for-profit venture than you might normally see in medieval times. The Normans also found mercenaries ideal for putting down revolts as the stationed soldiers might side with the citizens of the region.

At the end of the medieval period in Italy mercenaries were the way that the city states fought battles. Machiavelli once witnessed a battle between mercenary armies where only one man died when his horse bucked and he suffocated in the mud. They were expensive, ineffective, and often concerned more with style than killing power. Machiavelli also argued in The Prince that a mercenary who loses is worthless, and one who wins could be dangerous and could try to take over your kingdom. In 1494 when Charles the Eighth of France tore down the Italian Peninsula with his modern cannons and conscript army they took Italian city after city. It was only when the combined power of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire teamed up was France beat out of Italy. Despite this lack of political change the war did serve as a point where change in military affairs began to occur. Gunpowder made combat something everyone who could pull a trigger could do. Even today in Africa we see child soldiers that exemplify that point. Quantity over quality became just as important in warfare and conscripts were cheaper than the costly mercenaries. Groups such as the Hessians or Swiss mercenaries would still be used in places like the Revolutionary War and many of the fights between European states, and during the thirty years war tens of thousands of mercenaries fought for gold. But, for the most part professional or conscript armies would be the norm into the future. The one exception to this has been Africa over the past fifty years which has seen foreign troops brought in to squash rebellion and secure power for dictators. Mercenaries will always be a force that are most effective at shooting civilians due to their often foreign origins and high pay. For instance ex-Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi used foreign troops who didn’t speak Arabic to suppress rebellion. It’s hard to empathize with someone who doesn’t speak your language.

A few years ago another mercenary group called Blackwater dominated the news cycle. Since then it has changed its name twice to Xe and then to Academi. While they cater mostly to the United States they are also involved with other countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, and Azerbaijan. They are firmly in the mercenary zone as they provide their services to other countries and are not officially a part of any national government. While they will never replace the US Army they do provide services that the US needs for its war efforts. For one it’s easier to hire/fire them because they’re often ex-military and don’t need to be trained, and during peacetime they can just as easily be put off. I kinda see it as a comparison between building a house and renting an apartment. Regular US Army troops are cheaper just as a house is often cheaper per cubic foot and apartments are often easier to move away from because you don’t have to sell it.

While mercenaries might not be at the front lines anymore and they have certainly evolved since their early days, but they are still a part of current events and probably will be into the future. Their role is much diminished, but still alive in the media where mercenaries still hold sway in Hollywood. Films such as Rambo, the Expendables, and even Star Wars show how mercenaries will be us a long time ago in a galaxy far away.

The Prince by Machiavelli

The Market for Mercenaries by David A. Latzko from Wilkes University

War Made New By Max Boot

The Greek as a Mercenary Soldier By A. G. Russell

A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War by Victor Davis Hanson.

The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern by Victor Davis Hanson.

The Decline and Fall of Rome Lecture Series by Thomas F. Madden

The Tiber and the Potomac Lecture Series also by Thomas F. Madden

http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-benghazi-doctor-gadhafi-foreign-mercenaries-quell-protests/story?id=12972216#.TwuahG-XQ-A