THE ANA TOMY OF A MERCENARY: FROM ARCHILOCHOS TO ALEXANDER By Nicholas Fields Thesis submitted to the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy NEWCASTLE Ut4rVERSrT 4( LLRAR'( 094 51237 1 June 1994 To Leonidas THE ANA TOMY OF A MER CENA R Y.' FROM ARCHJLOCHOS TO ALEXANDER By Nicholas Fields ABSTRA CT Xenophon. who marched so many perilous Persian parasangs as a soldier-of-fortune and survived. has probably penned the most exciting, if not the best, memoirs by a mercenary to date. Moreover, for the military historian wishing to inquire into the human as well as the political aspects of hoplite- mercenary service, the Anabasis is the only in depth eye-witness account of an ancient Greek mercenary venture available. Of course the Anabasis is partisan and, at times, the contemporary reader cannot help but think that Xenophon's imagination is running away with him a bit. Nevertheless, his inside view of the complex relationships between mercenary-captains, the employers who employ them, the troops who follow them, the Spartans who use them, and those who mistrust them, has much more than just a passing value. Throughout mercenary history the balance between these groups has always been delicate, and, needless to say, the vicissitudes tend to follow the same pattern. Mercenary service was, and still is, a rather uncertain and dangerous vocation. We only have to read, for example, Colonel Mike bare's Congo memoirs to realise this. Apart from Xenophon himself and the mercenary-poet, Archilochos, the ancient literary sources generally supply little by way of data on such matters as recruitment, conditions of service, and the basic hopes, fears, and habits of those many individual hoplites who took up the mercenary calling as a way of life. And so, in order to capture the spirit of mercenary soldiering and thus pursue more closely the pertinent questions of motives, money and the military value of professional hoplite- mercenaries, this thematic inquiry also draws upon first-hand testimonies afforded by more recent mercenary soldiers. In so doing, the inquiry has aimed at a synthesis of the available material, both ancient arid modern, and thus, one hopes, has achieved a net positive result in which not only the mercenary-captains are better illuminated, but, also, the rank and file of a mercenary army are partially rescued from obscurity and given a voice. A CKNO WLEDGEMENTS The research and writing of this enquiry has been like a long trek into the wilderness. I would not have completed it without the love and support of my wife, Helen, and the faith and guidance of my supervisor, John Lazenhy. They have my heartfelt thanks and respect. Like all travellers, I owe a debt of gratitude to the many helpful people encountered en route. For their encouragement and assistance, I thank them all. In this regard, I am particularly indebted to Guy Sanders, Penny Wilson-Zarganis, Ilaria Romeo, and Jonathan Hall. To them, a special added thanks for their companionship. Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to the British School at Athens and the Greek Government. whose financial aid eased the way. Nic Fields, Athens, April 1994. CONTENTS Preface vi I Mercenary 2 Ancient and Modern 9 3 A Free-Lance Poet 20 4 Et Ex Arcadia Ego 50 5 Gentlemen-at-Arms 75 6 Warriors for the Working Day 98 7 Society of Professionals 122 8 Situation Vacant 137 9 Political Pa'n 160 Conclusion 178 Abbreviations 180 Bibliography 186 PREFACE It is a great pity that the predominant influence still exerted upon military historians of the conventional school is that of the high priest of military theorists, Clausewitz. Many military historians are still inclined to view warfare in the ancient world in terms of strategy and tactics: to depict ancient armies as smooth military machines gliding effortlessly over a neutral terrain: and to describe ancient warfare as almost a mundane series of skirmishes, battles and sieges. The somewhat Olympian view adopted by Clausewitz and his disciples can hardly be expected to take much notice of the human involvement in war at the ground level. The perspective, however, of a more socially conscious military historian is different. From this view point, some of the highest concepts of military theory dissolve into thin air: for example, the concept of grand strategy in ancient warfare - so dear to military theorists - seems a mere chimera. To the socio-military" historian the movement of troops across the ancient landscape appears to have as much direction as ducks on a village pond. Altogether too much military precision has been given to the hurly-burly of the ancient world's endless broils. We must not, however, forget one salient fact. The nature of any war which was fought in an age before Clausewitz was shaped by the reality that military organizations were relatively primitive and armies could not depend upon the regular satisfaction of all their needs by a High Command. Broadly speaking, ancient forces were not self-sufficient, well paid, competently otticered, barrack armies. They certainly could not be carefully screened from civilian society, and therefore, to treat them as isolated entities is worse than absurd. Indeed, armies are, to this very day. projections of the societies to which they belong. More particularly, in the polis-dominated arena of ancient Greece, the relationship between city-state army and city-state society was so close that the status of hoplite and that of citizen cannot really be distinquished. And so, the ancient military historian is invited to alter his or her traditional stance and urged to move beyond the "battle-and- leaders approach. which has made military history seem so narrow in the past, and see war in a proper social context. So planting my standard firmly in the camp of the socio-military historians, what follows is not an account thickly populated with bland repetitive descriptions of campaigns or unit organizations. This thesis has one prime objective: to shed a chink of human light upon the animal I know as the Greek hop lite-mercenary. The last in-depth study conducted upon the theme of Greek mercenaries, was that of the late H.W.Parke some sixty years ago hard on its heels came G.T.Griffith's sequel which carried the theme on into the Hellenistic period. The former was primarily a narrative tracing the history of the Greek mercenary from the seventh century BC down to the end of the fourth century BC. Although vi an authoritative work, it did not seek to break with tradition. Parke's objective, therefore, was not to tackle head-on such thorny topics as, for example, the motives that prompted Greeks to leave their city-states, farms and families in order to pursue such an uncertain vocation. In addition, he did not see the need to present the hoplite-mercenary as an individual. I do not wish to rewrite Parke's work. or even that of Griffith; let them stand as they are. I certainly do not advocate that we throw the baby out with the bath water, and neglect the human drama of the battlefield. The latter becomes apparent when we consider the recent additions to the armoury of the socio-military historian, namely the two latest publications - one written and the other edited - of V.D.Hanson. Through these he strives to offer a stark portrayal of the grim and bloody realities of hoplite warfare from the point of view of the hoplite himself: Hanson, like myself, has been heavily influenced by John Keegan's masterly work, The Face of Battle. It is in the footsteps of these scholars that I shall tread. Consequently, I shall be painting upon one broad conceptual canvas an interpretation of the hoplite-mercenary both as a political commodity to be snapped up by any interested party, and as an individual member of a society of professional soldiers. vii 1 MERCENARY Friars: (giving their usual greeting to wayfarers) God give you peace! Hawkwood: God take from you your alms! Friars: We meant no offence, Sir! Hawkwood: How, when you come to me and pray that God would make me die of hunger? Do you not know that I live by war and that peace would undo me? Sacchetti Novelle clxxxi The mercenary is a professional soldier whose behaviour is dictated not by his membership of a socio- political community, but by his desire for personal gain; he owes no allegiance beyond the cash nexus. Here, the thorny questions of both motive (money) and status (serving a foreign flag) are extraordinarily complex to decipher, but in short the mercenary is defined by three basic qualities: being a specialist, being stateless and getting paid.1 The professional soldier of a Western modern army is a highly respectable member of his society; but the professional soldiers of the ancient Mediterranean world prior to the advent of the Imperial Roman war-machine were, in the main, mercenaries. To us the name is somewhat equivocal, carrying with it romantic associations of far off places with strange sounding names, as well as being tainted as slightly shady and a touch sordid. Indeed, if the profession of mercenary is not quite the oldest - though an interesting case could be made that it is a peculiarly male version of prostitution - it has effectively been around for as long as war has been waged. The mercenary soldier is to be found in almost evec' high?' ogamzed societ' criihactc history, and is certainly not extinct in our own today. History is littered with examples of powers which have had imperial responsibilities and consequently have almost invariably employed mercenaries.