Mercenaries

[Timerover51]

While re-reading for the nth time, Machiavelli's The Prince, I reached the following quote, and got to wondering if anyone had ever used this in Traveller, given the number of mercenary units presumably available. As not all planets are members of the Imperium, or other empire, the opportunity would appear to occur, especially on Balkanized planets.

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.

 

[Condottiere]

You need to find a way to legitimize your rule, or you'll be facing an insurgency.

Be successful in war, marry the Princess and show impartiality to the vanquished.

 

[aramis]

While re-reading for the nth time, Machiavelli's The Prince, I reached the following quote, and got to wondering if anyone had ever used this in Traveller, given the number of mercenary units presumably available. As not all planets are members of the Imperium, or other empire, the opportunity would appear to occur, especially on Balkanized planets.

Machiavelli's own pessimism shines through. More than one mercenary has been competent and motivated by nationalism or civic virtue. Gen. Chennault, for one. (for everyone else, the pre-WWII American Volunteer Group, lead by US General Chennault, was mostly US Servicemen seconded to mercenary service on a leave of absence, so they could legally go fight in China.) Similarly, the American Expeditionary Force in Russia in the 1920's.

And that's before consideration of groups like the Polish Air Force of WW II and the French Legion Etrangier. Both of which are legally considered mercenary groups due to the low numbers of actual nationals within them, even within their command structure. (I have an acquaintance who served in the PAF as a pilot.)

And not a few current PMC's who are both competent and motivated solely by the money, not self aggrandizement, as the penalties for the later usually involve snipers...

 

[flykiller]

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

mach speaks from his own circumstances. the answer of course is to hire mercenaries who can never replace you, or never would. for example gaddafi surrounded himself with female bodyguards. ceausescu rescued orphans and raised them to be his private army. saddam hussein's number 2 man was a christian, precisely because a christian could never overthrow him to rule a moslem nation. etc.

 

[flykiller]

More than one mercenary has been competent and motivated by nationalism or civic virtue. Gen. Chennault, for one.

huh. wiki says he was forced out of the u.s. army air corps for health reasons, and he then went to china. sounds like he wanted to fly. and they paid him $1000 a month - 1937 dollars, back when minimum wage was $0.35/hr. that's a lot.

Similarly, the American Expeditionary Force in Russia in the 1920's.

wiki says the "polar bear expedition" was a formal u.s. army operation.

 

[Leitz]

Didn't Sforza take Milano or some place during the Italian internal wars?

Humorously, my Mercenary Marine character in atpollard's CT game is effectively taking over the planet from the bad guys and giving it to the good guys. Between Ack playing "Doc" and me with Marco we've changed the lives of 3+ million souls. Pretty good for a pair of 22 year olds.

 

[flykiller]

Pretty good for a pair of 22 year olds.

maybe you need a pc opponent ....

 

[creativehum]

Machiavelli is referring to mercenaries as people motivated by money.

If a troop is motivated by nationalism or any civic responsibility or loyalty to the leader of the city state (whether or not they are technically "mercenaries" because bookkeeping arrangements), then Machiavelli would not consider them "mercenaries". The kinds of troops flykiller and aramis describe above are the kind Machiavelli believes a leader SHOULD have -- loyal to the state, an ideal, the leader.

That is his warning: Gather troops invested in the state or the leader (for whatever reason) or suffer the consequences. Men fighting for money alone (mercenaries, in the context of his writing) will end up bringing you down one way or another, per the quoted section in the OP.

 

[Timerover51]

Didn't Sforza take Milano or some place during the Italian internal wars?

Humorously, my Mercenary Marine character in atpollard's CT game is effectively taking over the planet from the bad guys and giving it to the good guys. Between Ack playing "Doc" and me with Marco we've changed the lives of 3+ million souls. Pretty good for a pair of 22 year olds.

He did, and you also need to read about what the Swiss did to him around 1500, when he was dependent on the Swiss for his army.

An account of the Battle of Fornovo, which basically wrecked the prevailing condottieri system that have been prevalent in Italy during the 1300s and 1400s, would also be worth the read.

Side Note: The first combat of the American Volunteer Group, more well known as the Flying Tigers, took place on December 20, 1941, after the US was already at war with Japan, and a lot of the early combats of the Group took place over Burma, not China.

 

[Timerover51]

Machiavelli is referring to mercenaries as people motivated by money.

If a troop is motivated by nationalism or any civic responsibility or loyalty to the leader of the city state (whether or not they are technically "mercenaries" because bookkeeping arrangements), then he would not consider them "mercenaries". These are the kinds of troops a leader SHOULD have -- loyal to the state, an ideal, the leader..

That is his warning: Gather troops invested in the state or the leader (for whatever reason) or suffer the consequences. Men fighting for money alone (mercenaries, in the context of his writing) will end up bringing you down one way or another, per the quoted section in the OP.

Actually, he was more focused on the use of mercenaries for the basis of a principality's army, rather than using native or national troops. The problem for many of the Italian rulers of the period was that there was always in existence a large number of citizens who would rather that they not be ruled by the current ruler, and putting weapons in the hands of the disaffected citizens was an invitation to being replaced.

Side Note: Based on family research, my ancestors were mercenary cavalry during the 30 Years War.

 

[Leitz]

He did, and you also need to read about what the Swiss did to him around 1500, when he was dependent on the Swiss for his army.

An account of the Battle of Fornovo, which basically wrecked the prevailing condottieri system that have been prevalent in Italy during the 1300s and 1400s, would also be worth the read.

Some of my miniatures war gaming time was spent on the Italian Mercenary time from Matilda to the Franco-Spanish Throwdown. Naturally, as I age I've forgotten much but do recall walking around in Brescia, Milano, Venezia, and some of the areas of northern Italy. Castles abound!

A friend was visiting and we toured a museum in Brescia. He was reaching out to a weapon in a rack when I reminded him the thing was 500 years old.

 

[Condottiere]

Machiavelli was a nationalist, and was looking at the early Roman Republic militia as the model for the basis of an independent polity.

There's some controversy as to the advisability of the Late Principate's over reliance on paid allies. Then there's the fact that every Emperor has had to bribe the military with bonus payments to ensure their loyalty, in ever increasing amounts.

For a Renaissance version, there are the German Landsknechts, basically a probably better organized copy of the Swiss formations.

As for the Eidgenossen, sans argent, sans la Suisse. You have to understand the psychology of the troops you hire, and there are two primary reasons the Swiss were willing to fight for others, it was the easiest and fastest way to make money and it temporarily broke the tedium of existence.

 

[Leitz]

Of course the nationals were sub-divided even in themselves and one terzio might just as easily fight another. Or one noble conspire to harm another. Can't say Niccolo inspires me as a positive example...

 

[aramis]

huh. wiki says he was forced out of the u.s. army air corps for health reasons, and he then went to china. sounds like he wanted to fly. and they paid him $1000 a month - 1937 dollars, back when minimum wage was $0.35/hr. that's a lot.



wiki says the "polar bear expedition" was a formal u.s. army operation.

Records in the National Archives show otherwise. Records I've personally pulled staples from.

Note that the AVG was almost exclusively US military personnel, recruited by the US Army Air Corps HQ, and equipped by the US military... but not a one of them was on active duty while deployed to the AVG.

The AEF records (some of which were in the Anchorage office of the National Archives in 1997, when I pulled staples out of them) showed them as not on active US service, but on loan.

 

[Whipsnade]

Machiavelli was a nationalist, and was looking at the early Roman Republic militia as the model for the basis of an independent polity.

Got it in one.

Machiavelli was writing about a specific time and place with specific events, a specific audience, and a specific goal in mind. Thus, while there are some "universal truths" in The Prince, not everything in that work is one.

Putting it another way, Machiavelli in The Prince was recommending to a certain man that he apply a certain medicine to a certain group of social ills. Machiavelli was not suggesting that such a medicine should be applied by all men in all situations at all times.

I'll also point out that in Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli seemingly contradicts or refutes much of what is found in The Prince. The notoriety surrounding The Prince mean it's the only work by Machiavelli most people read.

 

[aramis]

Got it in one.

Machiavelli was writing about a specific time and place with specific events, a specific audience, and a specific goal in mind. Thus, while there are some "universal truths" in The Prince, not everything in that work is one.

Putting it another way, Machiavelli in The Prince was recommending to a certain man that he apply a certain medicine to a certain groups of social ills. Machiavelli was not suggesting that such a medicine should be applied by all men in all situations at all times.

I'll also point out that in Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli seemingly contradicts or refutes much of what is found in The Prince. The notoriety surrounding The Prince mean it's the only work by Machiavelli most people read.

The prince also has a better range of translations than his other works; many who start discourses don't finish it or don't grasp it due to poor translations.

 

[Whipsnade]

The prince also has a better range of translations than his other works; many who start discourses don't finish it or don't grasp it due to poor translations.

Perhaps. As a teen I read the late 1800s Thomson translation first and had no real difficulties. My Penguin edition uses a translation which has been around since the 1980s.

The real problem with The Prince is that most people have read about it rather than actually read it. And those few who have read it have read excerpts rather than the entire work. And those very few who read the entire work never bothered to read about Machiavelli, his times, or his other works.

Riffing on Russell here, The Prince is known more by description than actual experience. There's a great difference between reading about being punched in the nose and actually being punched in the nose.

 

[aramis]

Perhaps. As a teen I read the late 1800s Thomson translation first and had no real difficulties. My Penguin edition uses a translation which has been around since the 1980s.

The real problem with The Prince is that most people have read about it rather than actually read it. And those few who have read it have read excerpts rather than the entire work. And those very few who read the entire work never bothered to read about Machiavelli, his times, or his other works.

Riffing on Russell here, The Prince is known more by description than actual experience. There's a great difference between reading about being punched in the nose and actually being punched in the nose.

Excerpts from both were required reading in my HS; most kids had real problems with Thompson. few went past those excerpts (myself included); the Prince was from a newer, and better, translator (languages use implies Mid 20th C), with decent historical notes, a much easier read. (First three chapters of the Prince were required in Civics/Gov't... by both instructors offering the class. As were two later chapters. I read the whole book. Was a 60's edition, marked "New Translation") The Italian of his day was highly idomatic, and the translations tend to be as well... but even the idiom of the 50's isn't always intelligible to kids now.

 

[kilemall]

Records in the National Archives show otherwise. Records I've personally pulled staples from.

Note that the AVG was almost exclusively US military personnel, recruited by the US Army Air Corps HQ, and equipped by the US military... but not a one of them was on active duty while deployed to the AVG.

The AEF records (some of which were in the Anchorage office of the National Archives in 1997, when I pulled staples out of them) showed them as not on active US service, but on loan.

That sort of thing is done even today, under politically controversial actions Not To Be Discussed Due To Rules.

 

[kilemall]

While we are on the topic of The Prince, I detected a satirical tone to the work, where Machiavelli comes across to me as making subtle fun and jabs at the audience and their mores while overtly sucking up to them.

Or perhaps a world weary attitude that played well in that political culture.

I've read this is my imagination and 21st century perspective at work, is that so or is there something to my impression?