Thank you for this article! I read a lot of sci-fi, but I tend to lose track of plots with warfare because I don't know the different types of armies and characters and event all blur together
I think there's a lot more diversity in the word "mercenary" than you go into here. I should probably write this up at greater length, but here's something I wrote many years ago on SSC, breaking down different types of mercenaries:
1. A private company that basically has its own private army, which it rents out to states. Think of the Condottieri, Targon’s Toughs, or Hammer’s Slammers.
2. A unit which is essentially part of a regular military, but which is made up of soldiers from a country that isn’t the military’s own. The Gurkhas and the French Foreign Legion are the most prominent modern examples.
3. A unit that belongs to one country, and is sold to another. (The Hessians of the American revolution.) Arguably includes a lot of the current UN peacekeeping forces.
4. A unit that is raised by a country in wartime, and contains whoever is willing to show up and fight. (Typical during the early modern era, probably also things like Carthage.)
5. (Modern) A company that is technically private, but that is employed by a government to provide armed force. Usually staffed by citizens of the country. Distinguished from 1 by the fact that they’re essentially agents of a given government, and can't set out on their own. Blackwater.
I think you can count 4 as modern too. During the first phase of Russian-Ukrainian war there were such units in Donbas. But since no autocratic state can tolerate independent (and especially) military forces, those were absorbed into regular or shadow units. Or sent first into meat grinder during the full invasion. I might be mistaken and there are still some left because Donbas is still a chaotic mess.
Thanks for this! You definitely know way more military history than me.
That said, what about cases like the later Romans using basically German "irregulars," or the way Carthage (if I remember right?) sort of failed at integrating their conquered people as well as the Romans but still used their forces militarily? I forget a lot of the details there, but it'll be awhile before I have another chance to properly research it.
I guess the Wagner group would be another example of type 5?
This is pretty far from my area of expertise, and classification is hard, but I do think it's an interesting question.
Dec 14, 2023·edited Dec 14, 2023Liked by Eleanor Konik
About Wagner - kinda not.
Wagner Group isn't exactly in the mercenaries at all, because they were created as "dark" unit of regular military through military intelligence services GRU. That's why them going completely nuts and rogue was quite a spectacle to watch. Currently it's being replaced by the Redut unit, which is "same eggs but in profile" as we say. Well, without any well-known public face for now. But Wagner was a shadow unit before too. Their role is very simple : do all the stuff military wants, but with the benefit of "it's not us" denial. They are known for Ukraine to general public, but their main focus is/was Africa and Syria. So, nope, not mercenaries. Individual soldiers can be considered as such, but not the unit as a whole. I mean, can you imagine Blackwater going through a federal prison issuing paroles for convicts?
Wagner is 5, although rather different from Blackwater in that it is/was actually a frontline fighting force. I am less familiar with ancient warfare, and can't necessarily figure out exactly where those forces fit into this. I'd lean towards 4, maybe with a smattering of 3 for how the Romans did things towards the end.
I'll have to go in and think about this more. This definitely isn't a bad taxonomy, but I think I can do better. I think the most important distinction is "does this mercenary unit have any real existence independent of the paying state?", which is true for 1 and 3, but not 2, 4, or 5. This is a pretty close match to "is there any real chance of the mercenary company switching sides?" Sure, Gurkhas may join up because the pay is good, but the idea of bribing them into turning their coats is clearly nonsense.
Given that I was starting from almost literally not knowing anything about modern conscription works and being curious, I am confident that you can do a better job with a taxonomy 😂 But it does seem to be a pretty important question for understanding militaries, and I think very few books that I've read have ever addressed it in a comparative across cultures way.
You did not mention the Colonial "army" which started as mostly a group of farmers vs the professional British army that was supplanted with Hessians. The revolutionaries were organized by geographic based companies and were mostly unpaid. The British did not want to be here, and the colonial army was fighting for their own turf.
I might be wrong about this, but I tend to lump the militias into the same mental category as levies, but you're right I didn't mention it! I do a lot less with modern history than the ancient stuff as a general rule, mostly because my background was as a world history teacher and we covered remarkably little that gets covered in US History later on.
I might be wrong about this, but I tend to lump the militias into the same mental category as levies. And constitutional scholars have wildly divergent opinions about what the modern Second Amendment means, but I tend to think that the National Guard as currently conceived is a far cry from a true militia.
Yes, I agree with you about the difference between the National Guard and militias. I should hold my nose and dive into the writings of those who agree with Clarence Thomas - I bet they have a lot of information about the meaning of "militia" in 1791, since they as I understand it think the Constitution must be interpreted from the mindset of its authors.
That means the right to bear arms applies only to pikes and muzzle-loaders - but I digress.
Garrett Epps has some interesting thoughts on the second amendment -- he was my constitutional law professor way back when. Excellent taste in fantasy novels 😂
Thank you for this article! I read a lot of sci-fi, but I tend to lose track of plots with warfare because I don't know the different types of armies and characters and event all blur together
I think there's a lot more diversity in the word "mercenary" than you go into here. I should probably write this up at greater length, but here's something I wrote many years ago on SSC, breaking down different types of mercenaries:
1. A private company that basically has its own private army, which it rents out to states. Think of the Condottieri, Targon’s Toughs, or Hammer’s Slammers.
2. A unit which is essentially part of a regular military, but which is made up of soldiers from a country that isn’t the military’s own. The Gurkhas and the French Foreign Legion are the most prominent modern examples.
3. A unit that belongs to one country, and is sold to another. (The Hessians of the American revolution.) Arguably includes a lot of the current UN peacekeeping forces.
4. A unit that is raised by a country in wartime, and contains whoever is willing to show up and fight. (Typical during the early modern era, probably also things like Carthage.)
5. (Modern) A company that is technically private, but that is employed by a government to provide armed force. Usually staffed by citizens of the country. Distinguished from 1 by the fact that they’re essentially agents of a given government, and can't set out on their own. Blackwater.
I think you can count 4 as modern too. During the first phase of Russian-Ukrainian war there were such units in Donbas. But since no autocratic state can tolerate independent (and especially) military forces, those were absorbed into regular or shadow units. Or sent first into meat grinder during the full invasion. I might be mistaken and there are still some left because Donbas is still a chaotic mess.
Mercenaries; Hawkwood, a well known English leader of a merc. band.
Battle of Castagnaro, 1387 âš” How an English mercenary found fame and fortune in Italy âš” Documentary - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9hrQB8aSO4
Thanks for this! You definitely know way more military history than me.
That said, what about cases like the later Romans using basically German "irregulars," or the way Carthage (if I remember right?) sort of failed at integrating their conquered people as well as the Romans but still used their forces militarily? I forget a lot of the details there, but it'll be awhile before I have another chance to properly research it.
I guess the Wagner group would be another example of type 5?
This is pretty far from my area of expertise, and classification is hard, but I do think it's an interesting question.
About Wagner - kinda not.
Wagner Group isn't exactly in the mercenaries at all, because they were created as "dark" unit of regular military through military intelligence services GRU. That's why them going completely nuts and rogue was quite a spectacle to watch. Currently it's being replaced by the Redut unit, which is "same eggs but in profile" as we say. Well, without any well-known public face for now. But Wagner was a shadow unit before too. Their role is very simple : do all the stuff military wants, but with the benefit of "it's not us" denial. They are known for Ukraine to general public, but their main focus is/was Africa and Syria. So, nope, not mercenaries. Individual soldiers can be considered as such, but not the unit as a whole. I mean, can you imagine Blackwater going through a federal prison issuing paroles for convicts?
Thanks! Modern military stuff is definitely not my area, so this was super useful perspective.
Wagner is 5, although rather different from Blackwater in that it is/was actually a frontline fighting force. I am less familiar with ancient warfare, and can't necessarily figure out exactly where those forces fit into this. I'd lean towards 4, maybe with a smattering of 3 for how the Romans did things towards the end.
I'll have to go in and think about this more. This definitely isn't a bad taxonomy, but I think I can do better. I think the most important distinction is "does this mercenary unit have any real existence independent of the paying state?", which is true for 1 and 3, but not 2, 4, or 5. This is a pretty close match to "is there any real chance of the mercenary company switching sides?" Sure, Gurkhas may join up because the pay is good, but the idea of bribing them into turning their coats is clearly nonsense.
Given that I was starting from almost literally not knowing anything about modern conscription works and being curious, I am confident that you can do a better job with a taxonomy 😂 But it does seem to be a pretty important question for understanding militaries, and I think very few books that I've read have ever addressed it in a comparative across cultures way.
I think Wagner has men conscripted from prison, too? Or are those troops in the Russian military?
brava. focused and informative.
You did not mention the Colonial "army" which started as mostly a group of farmers vs the professional British army that was supplanted with Hessians. The revolutionaries were organized by geographic based companies and were mostly unpaid. The British did not want to be here, and the colonial army was fighting for their own turf.
I might be wrong about this, but I tend to lump the militias into the same mental category as levies, but you're right I didn't mention it! I do a lot less with modern history than the ancient stuff as a general rule, mostly because my background was as a world history teacher and we covered remarkably little that gets covered in US History later on.
I would be curious about two American applications:
1) What were the categories of the forces on the American side in the Revolution?
2) Do those categories have anything to do with the modern Second Amendment and the meaning of the phrase "a well-regulated militia..."?
I might be wrong about this, but I tend to lump the militias into the same mental category as levies. And constitutional scholars have wildly divergent opinions about what the modern Second Amendment means, but I tend to think that the National Guard as currently conceived is a far cry from a true militia.
Yes, I agree with you about the difference between the National Guard and militias. I should hold my nose and dive into the writings of those who agree with Clarence Thomas - I bet they have a lot of information about the meaning of "militia" in 1791, since they as I understand it think the Constitution must be interpreted from the mindset of its authors.
That means the right to bear arms applies only to pikes and muzzle-loaders - but I digress.
Garrett Epps has some interesting thoughts on the second amendment -- he was my constitutional law professor way back when. Excellent taste in fantasy novels 😂