G. T. Griffith

I've been reading a fair bit of Greek history recently and came across this book which looked interesting about the role of Mercenaries in the Hellenistic World. It's rather hard going and generally, I found it rather boring. A lot of guesses and estimates about the numbers of mercenaries in various battles but not that many conclusions. I guess, I am partly influenced by the war raging right now in the Ukraine where the Russians are employing the Wagner mercenary force as a major part of their army. (An interesting tactic here is the they have emptied their jails and given the inmates the chance to redeem themselves as mercenaries. And if they die....as most of them seem to ......then, I guess, that solves an economic problem for Russia. It no longer has to maintain the jail population.
I was interested in why somebody in the ancient world would become a mercenary and, from time to time, there are suggestions in the book about this. Basically it seemed to be an economic decision. Greek lands being inadequate to support the growing population. Inheritance laws where the farm went to eldest son etc meant a lot of the young guys were on their own or encouraged to join up with a unit and "make their fortune" from plunder and return rich. Generally, that didn't seem to happen. though some managed to be rewarded with a farm in one of the conquered lands. They might then become "cleruchs".....kind of a military class who had land holdings but who needed to be prepared to go to war when required. The Ptolemies, in Egypt operated an extensive system of this nature but the guys all went soft after a generation (or less) and were not great fighting material.
According to the book, the Macedonians and their phalanxes were the most highly sought after soldiers ...pretty much everywhere ...and they turned up everywhere in the ancient world. Also the Cretans....in fact Griffith say they "were by far the most prominent Greek soldiers through the Hellenistic period. The population of Crete, was hardy, warlike, much given to piracy: the island was a ready-made nursery for mercenaries".
I wondered how they got from their place of recruitment (extreme south of Greece Taenarum, seemed to be a major site for recruiting footloose soldiers) to wherever a war was about to be prosecuted. I guess, Herodotus' story of the ten thousand who marched overland through Turkey to Persia is a case study. Another one is the case of the Gauls who were invited into Turkey ...and stayed there and became the Galatians. They seem to have migrated from the northern part of Italy. But quite an exercise recruiting (and provisioning) an army of, say, 10,000. The recruiters needed deep pockets but didn't always have them. Griffith cites the case of Archae at Sellasia who employed mercenaries but were relying on winning (and booty) to be able to pay them.
The citizen armies of the time could not tolerate being away from their farms for any lengthy period....so a lot of fighting seems to have been seasonal.
A big problem with mercenaries is that they seemed to change sides fairly readily depending on who was offering the most pay. For example Ptolemy facing off with Antigonus's army offered high rewards to deserters.....and Antigonus ended up posting slingers to shoot down deserters....but lost the war.
A curious fact about this book is that some sections appear to have been just slotted in from essays that Griffith has written. They are different in style and quote heavily in greek (or french) with no translations.....clearly with an academic audience in mind. But a bit annoying.
One fact shines through and that is that mercenaries were widely used throughout the middle east in warfare .......typically to supplement the citizen or permanent armies.
The Seleucids seemed to have been able to maintain a "regular army" in the Greek style for over 200 years ...including the use of the Phalanx whilst this was not the case with the Ptolemies. Griffith attributes this to the fact that Greek cities were established throughout the Seleucid empire and were able to maintain their Greek traditions better and for longer...including the military......whereas in Egypt, the Cleruchs became absorbed into the community with soft living.
Something that I hadn't really appreciated was that, at least, in the 4th century BC both the Persian kings and the Egyptian were heavy users of Greek mercenaries....so presumably were familiar with their fighting prowess and techniques.
As I was reading, it occurred to me that mercenaries were actually service exports. In the terminology of the World Trade Organisation they were a "Mode 4" service export ...where a "natural person" crosses the border and delivers a service. (There is an implication here that the "natural person".....in this case the mercenary.....actually gets paid for their services and repatriates some of these earnings back to their home country as export earnings). I imagine in the case of large groups ...such as large groups of Macedonians or Cretans, that the export earning might have been a significant contributor to the local economy.
Overall, I found it rather hard going, deeply academic, and rather repetitious....didn't draw out all the conclusions that I would have liked but covered some. I give it three stars.… (mais)