Capitalism and the Cold War

What won the Cold War? The traditional narrative is that free markets and capitalism won the war for America over the Soviet Union who could not match the US buck for buck in military spending. Furthermore, the civilian economy produced so much awesome stuff that the civilian population of Russia didn't really have a choice. It had been beat by capitalism and shruggingly admitted defeat and joined the West....kinda.

This is the story we all know and love, but in reality it wasn't such a simple struggle of East vs. West or Capitalism vs Centrally Organized Communism. Confused? Let me give you and example: who built the atomic bomb? Well, the US built it, but was this the product of capitalists coming together to produce a good that was driven by the market forces of supply and demand? No, it was the product of a centrally organized top-down military project designed to help the nation win a war. It arrived too late to be of use in the Second World War, but it was produced en-mass to create a arsenal that could destroy the world and then some.

As you can see this was not a contest of the free world versus the communist world, but rather a horse race where the riders were the centrally organized states and militaries of the US and USSR riding a free market economy and a centrally organized economy. Although if it was a centrally organized state riding a centrally organized economy it was more like a rider and a horse versus a very big rider on foot. Analogies aren't always perfect....

The story becomes more complex as the US recovers from the Vietnam War, a crippling defeat for the hero of the story. During the war President Nixon makes a critical decision and removes the draft. The US has since had an entirely professional military instead of a military largely based on the draft for the vast source of its fresh bodies. When I was first parcing this out in my mind I thought this was a rather capitalist step to take by the American military. The Army, Navy, and Air Force now had to compete for labor in the markets like Microsoft, IBM, McDonald's, or any other company. However, I realized this is just like any other bureaucracy. With the draft gone the military became something that was akin to any other government bureaucracy with professional bureaucrats who had this as a career. Now, it's not to say the US didn't have these military bureaucrats before, but they made up a smaller part of the whole as in war the US would rely on draftees. The change Nixon made irrevocably changed the entire way that the US fought wars. However, from a sociological perspective the Army suddenly became much less democratic that did not send a nation to war, but rather a bureaucracy to war.

Amazingly, this new way of fighting has been an undeniable success. The Gulf War, police actions in Yugoslavia, and the initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were beyond compare in the history of warfare. When you add the word professional and career to military it seems that it is a good combination. In the First Gulf War the US deployed 500,000 troops, took 300 casualties to hostile fire, and cost an estimated $80 billion while the Second Gulf War in 2003 saw the deployment of only 250,000 troops, 84 casualties to hostile fire and cost around 20 billion dollars.* Quality did have an edge over quantity....or so it seemed.

Today we have seen the dull edge of the modern sword. While fire-power was overwhelming fighters, satellites, and helicopters struggle against an insurgency where boots on the ground is the best cure. The US also faces challenges to keep the costs under control, something that Rome found difficult with its own professional military.

The Roman example is a fantastic one to look at in comparison to our current system. Like the American Military, the Roman Army was a professional force that completely destroyed everything in its wake carving an empire out of the Mediterranean Sea and surrounding regions spreading from Britain to Iraq. Paying the troops increasingly became difficult and the Legions would back different powerful individuals who could promise them pay. They became chips that allowed violence to become a bought and sold commodity. Today, mercenary forces in Iraq such as Blackwater (renamed Xe and then renamed Acedemi) have brought America toward a capitalist military as their services become a commodified good that can be publicly traded. Personally I am slightly wary of both the professional and private forms of military that our country has relied on in the past decade with a much much greater fear of the private than the professional.

The reason I don't fear the Roman case happening to the US is the military is quite well compensated for their service and does not rely on booty, treasure, and loot for payment. This means they will more that likely never put their services up to the highest bidder. There is also a culture that is prevalent in the military of strict obedience to the elected President. I don't see a military coup in America's future. What I do fear is rising military costs getting out of control to keep this professional force in the field. Both of these fears are more nagging doubts than full-blown fears, but there is still something.

As for the private forces that have been used by the US. I hope they do not signal another shift in the sociological workings of the fighting forces in the US. That would not bode well for any of us.











*"The New American Way of War" by Max Boot in Volume 82 of Foreign Policy Magazine 2003.

Today, on Memorial Day I would advise reading a good article by a friend of mine about how we should appreciate veterans who put so much on the line. Click here for the article.

Power

I love Game of Thrones. As a little boy I grew up with Lord of the Rings (and am currently rereading it for the tenth time), and I am happy that fantasy, as a genre, has not died out and continues to develop. Game of Thrones is an excellent example of fantasy literature with deep adult themes being successfully brought onto the big screen. This has been quite the season of new shows for me as I’ve been asking for a zombie series that looks deeper into the human nature in the state of anarchy.

Now, the reason I mention this is that in the season opener there was an interesting scene that seemed like it was written by a political scientist. The scene begins with the queen, flanked by guards on either side, talking with Baelish, a rich man whose web of spies runs deep in the series. He states before her that one should not forget that knowledge is power. The queen then tells her guards to kill him, but right before the blade is called back to the scabbard inches from his throat. She has her guards turn around, step away, and close their eyes. “Power is power”, she states.

By this she refers to the ability to control others. To make others do what you want and to have your orders obeyed to the letter. The ability to control itself can be broken down piece by piece. The first aspect of power is the ability to control yourself. The question of do you have control over your own body is an ongoing debate among philosophers and political scientists. The argument by existentialists is the individualist one. According to existentialist philosophers you are the supreme power over yourself. Outside of you there are all of these raging forces. You have your family, your friends, your culture, your music, your parents, your government, and all of the things that have been imprinted into you by both nurture and nature. Despite all these forces YOU are the master and commander of your own soul. You are the one that makes all decisions and are responsible for all of your failures and successes.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum we have political scientists who identify you as being unable to resist being a part of your own culture. Even if you make a different decision or have some sort of crisis it’s simply because of conflicting cultural pressures.

Here’s an example: Who is responsible for the death of the Jews at Auschwitz? Was it Hitler, anti-Semitism, or the guy who actually pulled the lever that sent gas into the chamber? After a class I took on existentialism I tried to tell my professor that all the responsibility was in the hands of those who pulled the proverbial trigger. My professor, a brilliant guy leaned over the table at me and said, “so you’re telling me Hitler had no responsibility or power?” Of course I stammered and I stuttered, but I was…..schooled…..quite literally.

What's Wrong: Kony 2012

For all those who have watched the 30 minute video Kony 2012 I first wish to say I'm sorry, but it is emblematic of what is wrong with society today. Not there...here. What's wrong with us. What's wrong with me.

Let me first point out an interesting phrase that the video uses: we will fight war. We will fight war? How do you "fight" war? The phrase itself is hypocritical. And the video shows little of what "fighting" this war will/would mean. It would mean if a child soldier shoots at you, you shoot back. It means nation-building. It means casualties. It means war. 100 American advisors may help, but if history tells us anything it's doubtful that advisors will move the war in a major way. To fix the problems that many countries in Africa face would require sacrifice, sorrow, and blood. Would you give yours?

Now here is why I am ashamed. Back in the day if you believed in a cause you did it yourself. You picked up a rifle and bought a ticket to the front lines. In the Spainish Civil War Americans went overseas and fought in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. 2,800 served in the conflict and 700 died. Instead of lobbying our celebrities and military they were actual individuals who dropped everything for a cause they believed in. During the conflict in Libya I was listening to the BBC and they interviewed some of the rebels there. They had a translator, but then one of the guys starts talking and he says he’s from the Bronx. He heard the call and dropped his career in finance to fight for the freedom of his homeland. I had to think. Could I have done this? Ultimately I decided I couldn’t. I, too, am a part of this generation that comfortably sits in paradise while we lobby for others to fight for us. In this case it’s not even our troops as they’ll simply be advisors.

I doubt there’ll be a swift end to the violence that rages across the Congo basin any time soon. Hate breeds hate and until serious socio-economic changes occur we’ll see kids with rifles in the news til the day we die.

Now, I'm not against this movement. I think it has the right motivations. However, the internet hasn't changed anything. Fixing the problem will still require blood, money, and yet even more money and blood. Will you give yours?

If you haven't seen this video you can check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

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

3. Piracy Part 2 - Violence For Profit

This is the third part of the series violence for profit and the second on piracy. The podcast is available here or you can see the podcast here: http://historyontherun.libsyn.com/webpage

You’ve all probably heard of Captain Kidd sometime in your life. However, you probably don’t know all that much about him. Think for a second. Do you know which oceans he plundered? Can you tell me anything of his character? Probably not. He’s one of the pirates that everyone has heard of, but nobody knows anything about. So, who was Captain Kidd. Well, we know he was born in Scotland in 1654 and he had a hard life which drove him to sea for a living and over the next two decades of his life he learned his trade. In February 1689 at the age of 35 he was a part of the crew of the privateer ship the Sainte Rose, a French ship. Now, operating with a French ship wasn’t too bad for Kidd and the other British sailors, but when the news broke about how Britain was now at war with France they were operating in the middle of any enemy ship! Kidd and the others pleaded fealty to the mostly French crew, but when they attacked the island of St. Kitts in the Caribbean Kidd and the other British sailors doubled back to the boat, overpowered the crew, and returned as champions to a British port. The governor let Kidd keep the ship and he named it the Blessed William. Unfortunately, Kidd was double-crossed by a portion of the crew and was left stranded on the island of Antigua. After a year he was able to capture a ship and return to sea where he pursued the men who left him stranded. He named the ship Antigua after the island he had been marooned on. That led him to New York where he became a member of the gentry there and engaged in trade, privateering ventures, and was a father of two. Kidd desperately wanted to become a captain in the British Navy, but he did not have the pedigree or money to make it happen. He became involved with several businessmen who were putting together a privateering expedition along the West African Coast.

This is where things began to unravel. Kidd’s crew was the most desperate of crews. To be someone who would want to go to sea in such abysmal conditions took a special type of desperation. To get men to join the royal navy they would often use press gangs who would get you drunk and let you wake up aboard one of Her Majesty’s ships. This added to the fact that a third of his crew had died of a sickness after just starting caused some last minute recruiting of the dregs. These men wanted money and after 18 straight months of no rich targets they were not happy with their Captain.

Kidd had decided to go after targets along the West African Coast and to swing through the Indian Ocean looking for targets. His hope was to find pirates operating on this seaway where there were many plump Indian and Arab targets to choose from. Unfortunately, after no good legal targets to choose from Kidd picked one of the not-so-legal targets. He attacked an Indian vessel (really British) and took the cargo. It was worth about 6000 in today’s dollars. On his way back his ship fell apart, half of his crew deserted, and they had taken some of the goods, so he used the Indian vessel to travel back to the Caribbean. Lamentably, he found that he was now a wanted pirate when he got back, and all of his financial backers, including Richard Coote the governor of New York, had turned against poor Captain Kidd. When Kidd returned he was tried publicly and was found guilty of piracy. It was quite a sensation on the streets and the name of captain Kidd and piracy in general was discussed quite a lot in upper circles who debated the trial of the would be aristocrat gone bad. Kidd was led to the scaffold as he shouted he was innocent and then hung in front of a cheering crowd. His body would be put in a cage and posted on the banks of the River Thames. The bulk of Kidd’s loot would go towards building a hospital for injured sailors in London.

Kidd was not a successful pirate. I simply chose to tell his story because it is an interesting yet little known tale. He was a victim of the changing times that would come, in twenty years to wipe out the Golden Age of Pirates. Peace was bad for the business of privateers and the new northern European powers tried to destroy the monster they had created over the past 100 years. While many privateers switched careers to the shipping industry, other, more bloodthirsty men, went the way of the pirate. The royal navies suddenly had hundreds of men who sailed under their own flag and were crazy for blood, gold, and loot. They were unlike the semi-aristocratic men like Morgan and Kidd. They were the common sailor who were the more violent types and could not simply switch livelihoods that easily. The Royal navies were the most active during the Golden Age and slowly brought it to a close.
So, let us again switch scenery. Piracy was coming to an end in much of the Western Oceans, but I have not yet talked about the East. The first recorded incidence of piracy in China occurred in AD 589, but despite its lack of acknowledgment in the historical record it is likely that piracy was alive and well in the South China Sea well before that. When a dynasty was powerful in China the emperor would have the strength to reign in piratical activities. During times of unrest or weakness the pirates would basically create their own fiefdoms and attack any ships that went their way. Let me read a section from Angus Konstam’s book: Piracy: The Complete History to show something:

“In fact, the business of piracy was different in China from anywhere else in the world. For a start, piracy was highly organized. Rather than operating in individual ships or even small groups, pirates congregated into fleets. Instead of occupying small havens, Chinese pirates tended to control large sections of the coast…However, for the most part these Chinese pirate confederations or empires kept well away from politics, and simply ruled their pirate fiefdoms as independent states.”

These pirates operated basically up until the Europeans arrived and were driven out, but during their heyday they ruled the water. In 1661 Koxinga attacked the island of Formosa which was under Dutch control with 400 ships and 25,000 pirates. Koxinga was the son of Cheng Chi-Lung, another pirate king who crossed the Manchu or Qing Dynasty and both he and his son payed the price and were eventually defeated. After the fall of Koxinga’s pirate empire at the end of the 17^th century in 1681 the pirates would be fragmented for 100 years until Cheng Yih who would create an empire just as large. Cheng was born in Vietnam and his family has been in the piracy business for generations. Cheng Yih expanded his operations to the North in Kwangtung and would bully other pirates to follow his flag. By 1805 Cheng Yih had created a pirate league that dominated the South China Sea. Cheng divided up his forces into six fleets. A black, red, white, blue, yellow, and green fleet sailed the South Sea. Each of these fleets would dominate their area, control the seas, make ships pay to get through, and dominate trades like the Opium trade which had thousands of Chinese addicts. Cheng Yih personally controlled the largest of these fleets which had 600 ships and 30,000 pirates under his control, and, if all the fleets were to be merged together Cheng Yih could muster a force of 150,000 pirates and 1,200 ships which is the largest pirate fleet ever. If anyone threated Cheng’s Empire he could easily bring together all the fleets and beat off the Europeans or any attempt by the Imperial government to restrict him, which they didn’t really want to.

Imagine that. 150,000 pirates……that is something that you can’t even begin to imagine. Imagine being a European sailor, knowing that you will be sailing through waters where 150,000 pirates are spread out between you and where you want to go? Imagine that were you today. Would you go? Would you invest in a boat that might go there? You know the largest you might get in a pirate fleet in 2,000 or so pirates, but in the East we have forces of 150,000. He could even defeat European forces such as in 1804 where he beat a Portuguese fleet that was sent out to beat him.
Tragically Cheng Yih’s career took a tragic end when he died during a voyage in 1807. His wife Cheng Shi took over his massive Empire as he had no sons. However, Cheng Shi would not have much time at the helm as her Empire began to crumble. The different fleets began to fight each other, the British began to bring in more ships and fight piracy, and Imperial forces began to try to bring the opium trade under control. In 1810, after three years of rule, she accepted an Imperial offer of amnesty and retired to control a sector of the opium trade. The British would begin to dominate the Chinese market and Chinese politics and they began by defeating piracy and making the waters safe for free trade. The last major force was defeated at the Red River Delta where 1,800 pirates and 58 ships were destroyed by the British Navy as it swept down the Chinese coast.

Piracy has not died. Today it is still a major threat to world shipping, but it is nothing like what it was. There are no massive armies that terrorize Europe, no forces of 150,000, and nothing that can challenge the modern navies. For the most part these modern pirates operate in small groups in speed boats that cruise the waters around Somalia and the area around the Philippines and Indonesia where there is a lot of boats and a lot of nooks and crannies for pirates to hide in. Everyone remembers when the Somalian pirates took Richard Phillips, an American captain of the Maersk Alabama was taken hostage and then saved by Navy Seal snipers.

So, let’s discuss some trends in piracy and pirate history. For one we can note that piracy has always existed and it will probably always exist. The ancient Egyptians experienced piracy and we still deal with pirates today. We can analyze the historical trend in piracy however. Pirates, privateers, and others who profit from raiding all live for anarchy. One of the terms that historians have created that can help explain the lack of piracy in most parts of the world today is Pax Britannica and Pax Americana. Let me explain Pax Britannica first. When Britain began to dominate the waves and cut out its empire it began to become the most powerful country in the world. The beginning of Pax Britannica begins at the fall of Napoleon and ends with the two World Wars that crippled the British Empire giving it a 200 percent debt to GDP ratio, a bombed out country, and a much weaker navy. During that time Britain destroyed piracy in every major ocean, spread parliamentary democracy around the world, and helped police international conflict. The 19^th Century saw barely any conflict and very few wars. It was the failure of this international system that Britain led that saw a return once more to trouble on international waters as nations. After the two World Wars America took over Britain’s role as globocop and continued the patrolling of waters and the commitment to free trade. Today America has the most to benefit from keeping the sea lanes free of pirates and therefore commits resources to do so. While Britain did have a navy that was the most powerful in the world during Pax Britannica, America today arguably has both the most powerful navy and army which may cause Pax Americana to last longer than Pax Britannica did. It’s an amazing thing to examine, but, as the Human Security Reports say there has been a dramatic and steady downfall in violence every decade since the Second World War. That means that the 90’s were more peaceful than the 80’s which were more peaceful than the 70’s and so on.

From an economic point of view it has been said that piracy can be merely a way for countries to put a tariff on the goods of other richer countries that might not want to trade with it. For example in Somalia the piracy trade is one of the largest generators of wealth in the country. Piracy can in many ways be a libertarian’s dream way of fighting wars. When a country declares war on another it can profit from charging for letters of marque from privateers. The only problem with that approach, as the British found out, it is hard to make those privateers go away when you want peace. Some nations, such as the Barbary States made it into an entire industry and relied on the corsairs for both revenue and power. Another thing that pirates provided in terms of economic benefit was a free form of national defense. Pirates such as Henry Morgan were really the only thing between the Spanish and the settlers of Jamaica. For the pirates themselves piracy was simply a business, a trade, a means of life. Most of the men who engaged in true lawless piracy were probably mentally ill in some way, but most privateers liked to think of themselves as patriots and would not attack their own countries ships under any circumstances.
Now, the economic effects to the global markets from piracy are large. For one, it raises the costs of global trade by making insurance costs go up. The costs go up even higher as the wages you have to pay for sailing through pirate infested waters must be higher than without. Lastly, the amount of goods being sent decreases as fewer businesses can cope with the costs of sending their product to market. Less goods for the same supply makes prices go up, trade goes down, and decreases globalization. While some might argue that the taxes that go towards the Navy outweigh the costs associated with piracy it is ultimately incorrect if we look at the historical record. As British sea power grew piracy decreased and globalization began to occur. If anything, we know that markets like an absence of war, piracy, and violence to work best. We can also see that as you invest in a global market the costs of that market go down as countries get incentives to police their own waters. All across Europe we don’t see any piracy anymore because as liberal capitalism spreads, so too spreads governments that want trade and don’t want piracy. If you let piracy defeat globalization by providing no police we could see a slide back into the era when armadas of 150,000 pirates sailed the high seas.

Piracy: The Complete History by Angus Konstam

Empire of Blue Sea by Stephan Talty

http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-11542&y=-7598&z=5

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-12/world/somalia.pirates_1_navy-snipers-three-pirates-bill-gortney?_s=PM:WORLD

Piracy and World History: An Economic Perspective on Maritime Predation by J. L. Anderson From the Journal of World History,

the Human Security Report http://www.hsrgroup.org/human-security-reports/human-security-report.aspx