The Historians' Portrayal of Bandits, Pirates, Mercenaries and Politicians
Freelance Warfare and Illegitimacy: the Historians’ Portrayal of Bandits, Pirates, Mercenaries and Politicians A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Minnesota BY Aaron L. Beek In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Advised by Andrew Gallia April 30, 2015 © Aaron L. Beek 2015 Abstract This dissertation examines freelance warfare in the ancient world. The ‘freelancer’ needs to be understood as a unified category, not compartmentalized as three (or more) groups: pirates, bandits, and mercenaries. Throughout, I contend that ancient authors’ perception and portrayal of the actions of freelancers dramatically affected the perceived legitimacy of those actions. Most other studies (e.g. Shaw 1984, de Souza 1999, Grünewald 1999, Pohl 1993, Trundle 2004, Knapp 2011) focus on ‘real’ bandits and on a single one of these groups. I examine these three groups together, but also ask what semantic baggage words like latro or leistes had to carry that they were commonly used in invectives. Thus rhetorical piracy is also important for my study. The work unfolds in three parts. The first is a brief chronological survey of ‘freelance men of violence’ of all stripes down to the second century BC. Freelancers engage in, at best, semi-legitimate acts of force. Excluded are standing paid forces and theft by means other than force, vis. In a form of ancient realpolitik, the freelancer was generally more acceptable to states than our aristocratic historians would prefer that we believe. Moreover, states were more concerned with control of these ‘freelancers’ than in their elimination. The second section explains events of the second and first century in greater detail.
[Show full text]