Herzogenrath-Amelung2018.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. At the Heart of Loyalty A Comparative Analysis of Military Loyalty in the Armies of Greek City-States and Hellenistic Kingdoms Tristan Herzogenrath-Amelung Ph.D. University of Edinburgh 2017 ii Signed Declaration This thesis has been composed by the candidate, the work is the candidate’s own and the work has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification except as specified. Signed: iii iv Abstract This thesis is a comparative analysis of the concept of military loyalty in the armies of Greek city-states and Hellenistic kingdoms, combining ancient evidence with the use of modern theories of organisational structures and combat motivation. It presents a basic contrast between Polis armies, which displayed high levels of loyalty, and Royal armies, which suffered from frequent cases of non-compliance and disloyalty, and argues that this contrast is a consequence of two fundamentally different ways of generating compliance and loyalty. Polis armies, it will be shown, predominantly exercised normative power, i.e. they relied on a combination of symbolic incentives and rewards, and a civic ideology of sacrifice for the common good; correspondingly, the soldiers, over whom this power was exercised, predominantly displayed moral involvement with their army, that is they complied voluntarily, out of a belief in the righteousness of their cause and in the alignment of their own benefit with that of their organisation. Royal armies, on the other hand, primarily utilised remunerative power, i.e. the allocation and manipulation of material rewards, which in turn was met by predominantly calculative involvement from the soldiers, i.e. a utilitarian assessment of risk and reward. These two compliance relationships – normative-moral and remunerative-calculative – lay at the heart of the different levels of loyalty we find in Polis and Royal armies. Nevertheless, at times this distinction broke down, revealing areas of overlap and a complex layering of motivations and types of power. The argument will be developed over the course of five chapters. Chapter 1 provides the theoretical framework. It explains Amitai Etzioni’s Compliance Theory, detailing the three congruent compliance models organisations may use. These models are based on the type of power the organisational elites (generals and officers) apply, and the type of involvement present in the lower participants (soldiers): normative power and moral involvement, remunerative power and calculative involvement, and lastly, coercive power and alienative v involvement. I will also stress the importance of the socio-political system over that of primary groups for the generation of compliance and loyalty. Chapter 2 presents the evidence for the different levels of loyalty in Polis and Royal armies, showing how citizen forces were robustly cohesive in the field, whereas the armies of the Successors and Hellenistic kings frequently succumbed to treachery, non- compliance, and disloyalty. I argue that one of the main reasons for this contrast lay in the powerful socio-political system that enveloped Polis armies, allowing them to develop a normative-moral compliance relationship. At the same time, however, it caused intense political infighting. Chapter 3 will explore one feature of the socio- political system: funerary practices. We shall analyse how armies and societies commemorated their soldiers, and witness the effects of civic ideology on the expressive content in soldiers’ epitaphs. The evidence suggests strong normative elements for Polis armies, but does not allow us to draw firm conclusions regarding Royal armies. Chapter 4 will discuss the third type of congruent compliance relationship, i.e. coercive-alienative. I describe how neither army had access to, or need of, an effective coercive apparatus, as both had found other ways to create and maintain compliance. Chapter 5 will analyse the reward structures of Polis and Royal armies, and I will draw attention to the overall symbolic nature of rewards in citizen armies, and the largely material aspects of Royal army rewards, while pointing out ways in which Royal army elites strove to exert normative power through settling soldiers. This reflects the predominant types of power and involvement that characterised these organisations. Finally, a concluding section highlights the contrasts that were revealed in this thesis, but also discusses areas of convergence where the ‘Polis army vs. Royal army’ dichotomy broke down: creating and maintaining loyalty is a complex task, and military organisations employ more than one way to achieve it. vi Lay Summary This thesis is a comparative analysis of military loyalty in the armies of ancient Greek city-states on the one hand, and of the Hellenistic kingdoms that emerged after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC on the other. I combine ancient evidence and modern theories of organisational structures and combat motivation. It presents a contrast between city-state (or Polis) armies, which displayed high levels of loyalty, and the armies of the kingdoms (or Royal armies), which suffered from frequent cases of disloyalty, and argues that this contrast is a consequence of two fundamentally different ways of fostering loyalty. Polis armies, it will be shown, mainly relied on a combination of symbolic incentives and rewards, and an ideology of sacrifice for the common good. Consequently, the soldiers followed orders more or less voluntarily, out of a belief in the righteousness of their cause. Royal armies, on the other hand, primarily relied on material rewards and incentives, which meant that soldiers generally followed orders out of a calculated assessment of risk and reward. The argument will be developed over the course of five chapters. Chapter 1 provides the theoretical framework. It explains Compliance Theory, detailing the three compliance models organisations use, based on the type of power the organisational elites (generals and officers) apply, and the type of involvement present in the lower participants (soldiers): normative-moral, remunerative-calculative, and coercive-alienative. Chapter 2 then presents the evidence for disloyalty in Polis and Royal armies, showing how city-state forces were generally loyal, whereas the armies of the Hellenistic warlords frequently experienced treachery. I argue that one of the main reasons for this contrast lay in the powerful socio-political system that enveloped Polis armies. Chapter 3 will explore one feature of the socio-political system: funerary practices. I analyse how armies and societies commemorated their soldiers, and what effects civic ideology had on the inscriptions on soldiers’ tombs. Chapter 4 will discuss the role of coercion and punishment in Polis and Royal armies. I describe how neither army relied on vii coercion, as both had found other ways to create loyalty. Chapter 5 will analyse the reward structures of Polis and Royal armies, and highlight the overall symbolic nature of rewards in Polis armies, and the largely material aspects of rewards Royal armies. This reflects the predominant types of power and involvement that characterised these organisations. Finally, a concluding section highlights the contrasts that were revealed in this thesis, but also discusses areas of convergence where the ‘Polis army vs. Royal army’ dichotomy broke down: creating and maintaining loyalty was a complex task, and military organisations employed more than one way to achieve it. viii Acknowledgements This thesis has benefited immeasurably from the attention and support from a number of people. Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors. Andrew Erskine has shown the greatest patience, and provided invaluable criticism and encouragement throughout my doctorate. This work owes much to his expertise and keen eye for detail, not to mention the countless discussions in our meetings. Ben Gray has been a constant source of motivation, unerringly guiding me to refine my argument and always offering expert advice. To both of them I express my deepest gratitude. During my studies, it has been my privilege to be part of an extremely kind and supportive academic environment. I owe a great personal debt to Mark Woolmer, Edward Harris, Ivana Petrovic, and Andrej Petrovic, all of whom have been instrumental in inspiring me to develop as a scholar. I would also like to thank Silvia Barbantani for her help with the funerary material and for making some of her work available to me prior to publication. Mirko Canevaro also provided me with two of his articles before publication, and together with Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones he helped shape this thesis through his constructive feedback in the annual reviews. A special thanks is due to the Wolfson Foundation, which generously decided to fund my doctorate; this thesis could not have been written otherwise, and I will be eternally grateful. I thank Sarah Cassidy and Liam Gale for their meticulous proofreading and insightful feedback. Furthermore, without the exceptional hospitality of Sarah Cassidy and Fraser Reed, the final write-up would have been a logistical nightmare. I also wish to thank the Laningas and the Heroes of Phandalin for providing much- needed recreational support. An inestimable debt is owed to Katherine Murray for being an unshakeable source of stability and joy when the going was rough.