Mercenaries Were More Common in Greek Warfare Than Ancient Historians Let On | Hacker News Reader

Mercenaries Were More Common in Greek Warfare Than Ancient Historians Let On

smithsonianmag.com

107 pointsdiodorus77 comments

In “The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece”, Joshua Ober describes the Mediterranean of the classical period as a zone of free exchange, unified by a common Greek language, a common set of commodities (olive oil, wine, grain). This promoted competition, exchange, and specialization. Another one of these common commodities was mercenary labor. Ober describes them memorably as “violence specialists”, just as they were craftsmen of amphorae or viticulturists, haha. Good book to learn of the efflorescence of Classical Greece, where Athens boasted a 100 different kinds of craftsmen, where surplus wages were higher than any time until after the 1890s.

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691140919/th...

> where Athens boasted a 100 different kinds of craftsmen, where surplus wages were higher than any time until after the 1890s

Wow, I find that incredibly hard to believe. Better wages for tradesmen than ever existed in Rome, Mughal empire, imperial China, 19th century Britain? I'm curious how he got that figure.

Perhaps they meant in Greece specifically?

Empires might not be the places with the highest per capita productivity. E.g. the Netherlands had the highest (estimated) GDP per capita in Europe (and probably the world) between the early 1500's and 1800.

Not sure about ancient Greece, I would assume that craftsmen wages in the Low Countries must have been significantly higher by the late middle ages.

The Dutch East/West India companies were quite large and influential. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Empire

Higher in Athens. After the Greek Golden Age Athens was never the capital of an empire again. No doubt there were times when surplus wages for craftsmen in Constantinople before the 1890s. But most of the history of agricultural societies is of population growing as fast or faster than productivity so most people lived on the verge of starvation. This only started to change permanently with modern economic growth kicking off ~1870. NW Europe was the first region of the world to end famine and the last one was in the 1840s. Most of the history of humanity is of poverty. Thankfully we now have the social technology, capitalism, to end that, even if it is unevenly distributed.

A very good book on this is "Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World" by Gregory Clark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms

Well part of the reason that famines were reduced in parts of Europe was precisely that capitalism/imperialism exported misery abroad, sometimes across the world, sometimes next door (see the Irish Famine). Those "NW Europe" countries you refer were the metropoles of empires or otherwise were at the top of the food chain of the economic system. It is natural they they were the first tk benefit from industrial-age exponential growth in productivity. It's funny that you say "it's just unevenly distributed", as if that wasn't a fundamental feature of capitalism ;)

Anyway, I would pin it rather on technological developments, than exactly the system of capitalism.

Misery is the natural condition of man. Its presence does not need to be explained but its absence.

Uneven distribution is a natural feature of economic systems as a subset of ecological systems. Communism can’t make economies of scale or agglomeration effects not exist by fiat.

Continued economic growth is due to technological developments, which are due to capitalism. The joint stock company and industrial research lab led to modern economic growth.

But I didn't say anything about communism, we're talking about capitalism. Though I also don't understand how communist states cannot have economies of scale x)

What I'm saying is that capitalism was concurrent with a too many developments and transformations, for us to be able to simplistically say "capitalism creates prosperity" (let alone the even stronger "capitalism creates prosperity and nothing else can").

> “violence specialists”

Now changing all of my online profiles

It reminds me of the Wagner Group motto: "Our business is death and business is going well."

They are Russian mercenaries, so a bit of cynicism fits them. The Ukrainian war may prove too literal for Wagner Group, though. They are deployed in the worst locations and they had so many KIAs that they are now recruiting in prisons.

Well they didn't specify whose deaths

wtf. I assumed this was a reference to a TV show that I didn't get. No, they appear to be the real thing?!:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group

They are a real thing and quite infamous.

Xenophon's Anabasis [1] has been on my reading list for a while but it was difficult to find a particular translation that I was interested in.

However, I just checked again and saw that Loeb Classical Library now offers individual subscriptions! [2] Better yet, it looks like you can read your book in the browser where original Greek appears next to the English translation! [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_(Xenophon)

[2] https://www.loebclassics.com/page/subscribe/

[3] https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL090/1998/pb_LCL090.1.xm...

Have you seen there is a "Landmark" Anabasis now? I don't know what the translation is like, but when I read Herodotus & Thucydides all the maps were a big help, and the appendices had lots of interesting bits of info.

If anyone has an opinion on the translation they used, I'd be curious to hear it.

Big thumbs up to the Landmark Histories project (http://thelandmarkancienthistories.com/). Excellent production value making reading these histories much more managable -- you're 100% right on the frequent maps and good appendixes.

Don't have Anabasis, but Herodotus was excellent.

Just purchased because of this comment, thank you!

I was still curious about the translation quality, so I checked BMCR. Here is a review that praises the translation:

https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2022/2022.09.40/

That's not really a surprise considering the high quality of the Landmark series in other areas, but it's reassuring.

I found this line The Greeks were also “obsessed with being Greek” and considered anyone who did not speak the language to be a “barbarian,” as Katherine Reinberger, a bioarchaeologist at the University of Georgia of the article extremely funny. That’s a weird way to say that yes βάρβαρος does indeed mean someone who does not speak Greek, a foreigner in Ancient Greek.

I heard that barbarian as a word itself is mocking non Greek language. Like speech in other languages is just bar bar bar bar

I mostly hear this word in the context of the Romans, but I thought that it was a term for facial hair- implying those external to the "civilized" empire had a tendency for ragged and long facial hair.

Hence the term 'barber' for a person that cuts said facial hair.

no, that’s a false friend etymology.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/barber

“barbarian” is onomatopoeic for “people who talk like bar bar bar bar and aren’t greek”. the (themselves barbarian) romans adopted the term.

One notable “barbarian” group would be the Berbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbers whose name might actually be derived from the Greek word for barbarian.

It does literally mean that but it contemporaneously had a connotation of "not civilized" just as it does today. I don't think there's a word in English that carries this same double-meaning. For example, "un-American" certainly has the right meaning for the second connotation but it's never used in the purely literal sense. Conversely "foreigner" does have that literal first sense and can be used with a pejorative connotation, but still only one meaning; the foreignness is inherently pejorative, it's not a synecdoche.

How about "third world"?

A good suggestion!

I would say that that statement of Reinberger is a "sensualized" one. (Also saying "the Greeks think/thought Y" is like saying "the whole U.S. over 200 years was thinking Y" times 30+.)

To add to your comment: Anyone who didn't speak Greek was by definition a barbarian because that is what it meant. That is one was βαρβαρίζει (~varvarizi) (verb), as that is what other neighbouring languages sounded (and sound) in our ears: a constant βαρ βαρ (var var) sound.

The Romans added Latin to the non-sounding var var /barbarian languages, when they came in contact with us. Mostly out of prestige/common trade/allying. So the term was later enforced to mean anyone that doesn't speak Greek or Latin is a barbarian/"barbarizes."

And by the time of Pax Romana to mean inferior, as it did not have the knowledge and resources to learn the lingua franca of the times. In Hellenistic times, prior, the lingua franca was Greek, but I am not sure at the moment of the average Joe's perception on the matter. Generally a lot of trading cities where open to new ideas so I doubt that it was seen as inferiority more like a peculiarity or annoyance -- if you were trying to trade.

There is the notorious "to an unknown God" inscription/offering Athenians had [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_God -- if you excuse my laziness with wikipedia]. That is not the behaviour of someone obsessed with themselves.

The usage of the word today and back then are not necessarily the same.

> Researchers found that many of the soldiers were born far away, in places like the eastern Baltic, Central Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus Mountains.

I like that because I'm used to thinking that most mercenaries were Balearic slingers, Numidian horseman, and Cretan archers. Probably because that's what Caesar wrote about in Conquest of Gaul. I guess you can't forget about Iberian and Libyan infantry that Carthage used quite a bit as well as Spartan mercenaries and the infamous Italian mamertines.

Caesar:

Ch. 7 Thither, immediately after midnight, Caesar, using as guides the same persons who had come to him as messengers from Iccius, sends some Numidian and Cretan archers, and some Balearian slingers as a relief to the towns‐people, by whose arrival both a desire to resist together with the hope of [making good their] defense, was infused into the Remi, and, for the same reason, the hope of gaining the town, abandoned the enemy.

Ch 10 Caesar, being apprized of this by Titurius, leads all his cavalry and light‐armed Numidians, slingers and archers, over the bridge, and hastens toward them. There was a severe struggle in that place. Our men, attacking in the river the disordered enemy, slew a great part of them

Just to be skeptical here: I grant that the genetic evidence demonstrates they were foreign, but what is the evidence that they were mercenaries? That is, that they were professional soldiers taking money in exchange for fighting in battles. Might they have been allies? Slaves? Might some of the Greeks also have been mercenaries? Perhaps this is discussed in the paper, even if it's not mentioned in the article.

Well it’s a really mixed group of people all buried in a common pit. If they were Allie’s they’d have been buried in less heterogeneous groups according their own customs. Some may have been slaves but that doesn’t seem to be a common situation outside of Sparta and some rare occasions.

It’s well documented that there were a lot of mercenaries used in the Mediterranean at the time. The Greeks didn’t write much about their own use, but it makes sense. You’d probably want unit types other than hoplites in a large conflict, and specialized mercenaries are a great way to achieve that.

For as long as there have been people with more money than men, I think there have been mercenaries. Contender for the second oldest profession.

Just cuz it's fun to talk about: Third. Food prep is (IMO) the contender for second :)

I'd guess that fire-starter and flint-knapper are the two oldest actual professions, with their origins pre-dating the evolution of 'modern humans'. The so-called 'oldest profession' (prostitution) likely required the development of agricultural civilization and wouldn't be that viable within hunter-gatherer societies. Similar arguments apply to the origins of priests and kings, to some extent. Hunter-gatherer tribes might also have had tribal leaders, shamans, and sex-for-food dealings.

Your comment is confusing. Are you saying that tribal leaders aren’t kings, shamans aren’t priests, and sex-for-food is not prostitution?

Long ago, I read an article about an experiment where chimpanzees in captivity were given a banana vending machine. The machine took tokens that the chimpanzees could earn doing various tasks.

The researchers soon found that the male chimps were earning tokens, getting bananas, and trading the bananas to the female chimps for sex.

What is the calculation for hiring mercenaries vs volunteers vs drafts? I would guess it depends on whether you have money or not. But it also seems like there are other dangers, like being outbid at the last moment by the enemy and having the mercenaries turn on you. Or maybe desertion, or being too selective about their missions. Maybe mercenaries might even drag out a conflict or misrepresent the conditions in hopes of getting more pay. But mercenaries probably come already trained and with experience, and maybe inside knowledge or even special arrangements to ensure a victory.

And what is the calculation for being a mercenary? Obviously you want to avoid becoming cannon fodder, but how do you know?

Mercs that accepted competitive bids would not be hired again by nearly anyone.

Thucydides discusses the issue at points. Eg. "A loan from these enables us to seduce their sailors by the offer of higher pay. For the power of athens is more mercenary than national; while ours will not be exposed to the same risk"

I’m curious how the economy of hiring mercenaries worked.

Was it cheaper than encouraging locals or paying them?

Did these guy just travel in groups looking for a state to hire them?

Could you make a living doing that/ was there enough work or was this more of an odd job type opportunity for people from places where there were few options?

> Did these guy just travel in groups looking for a state to hire them?

In the case of Swiss ones, yes [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries

We’re discussing a period thousands of years prior where the logistical and economic shape of transactions are entirely different.

The ancient Greeks worked at a time when even maps were non-existent and/or a new thing

The Antikythera Mechanism indicates that those assumptions may not be true.

The Antikythera Mechanism dates to the 2nd century BCE, so about 300 years later than the period in question.

> According to the Smithsonian Magazine, Roman statesman Cicero reported that 3rd century BC Greek mathematician Archimedes apparently owned such a device, a full 500 years before the apparent age of the Antikythera Mechanism. [0]

Not saying this is true but only that something that complicated doesn't just pop into existence.

[0] https://www.grunge.com/223314/the-truth-about-the-computer-b...

Of course it comes from somewhere, and of course there we maps of the region in early antiquity. The 3rd century B.C.E is actually 200 years after the date in the article and 100 years before the Antikythera Mechanism. You can find a translation of Cicero here[1], which claims that Archimedes novel invention was the differentiated movement speed of other celestial bodes in the "same revolution." Pretty cool if true, but it does imply that people were tinkering with similar things at the time.

[1]https://www.gutenberg.org/files/54161/54161-h/54161-h.htm

Agree that we can’t extrapolate much from the late medieval era to Ancient Greece. But mapmaking isn’t required for logistical and economic sophistication. All you need is writing.

> Was it cheaper than encouraging locals or paying them?

A great deal of ancient warfare was profitable as you could both loot and take slaves after the battle. You can’t exactly pay someone to take their stuff and turn their kids into slaves. But, you might be able to pay mercenaries to take their neighbors‘s stuff.

The Anabasis, by Xenophan, is the story of Greek mercenaries looking to become wealthy from looted treasures and slaves

The older I get, the more I see the association between Vikings and Mongols with rape and pillage is just PR.

Because it was so prevalent everywhere or because you think Vikings and Mongols didn’t rape & pillage?

Not the OP, but yeah, it is like saying "Oh, look, Fred over here is such a naughty drinker" when the whole city is chock-full of raging alcoholics.

I am SHOCKED to learn that there is gambling going on in this establishment!

Here are your winnings, sir.

They both got a reputation for raiding christian institutions in areas where they where normally left alone in wartime. A major difference for the people recording history at the time, but largely meaningless for most of the population back then.

If a city full of raging alcoholics think Fred has a drinking problem, then he very likely does.

Good argument. But maybe the speaker just wants to draw attention away from his own drinking problem... ?

It isn't just a PR, it is about the scale, especially when we are talking about Mongols.

Sure, ancient greeks did raping and pillaging, but (please correct my historical knowledge here if I am wrong, because I definitely could be) iirc ancient greeks didn't come even close to the scale of mongols who essentially conquered and held and insane chunk of the continent under their thumb for nearly a century (counting from the start of what's considered their golden age until the start of their decline). Especially considering the time period in question. It is one thing to control a large occupied territory using modern logistics, communication, and transportation tech. In the era before firearms were widely used, telegraph didn't exist, and where horse cavalries and archers were extremely relevant, that's a whole other magnitude.

It's like saying "Nazi Germany atrocities are all just PR, look at those african warlords over there." Sure, atrocities of those warlords are absolutely terrible and inhumane, but it is the scale of Nazi Germany that, rightfully, gives them that "PR".

>please correct my historical knowledge here if I am wrong, because I definitely could be

Alexander the Great was Greek, and though less successful than the Mongols he conquered a comparable amount of the world. His personal empire collapsed quickly, but Greeks still controlled much of it for quite a while.

His army committed similar atrocities, but we remember him as "The Great."

There are a few ways of comparing them but the Mongol empire grew to about four and a half times the physical size of Alexander the great’s empire and had at least an order of magnitude more people.

Surely you don't mean Alexander the Great's rape and pillaging was acceptable because he only did it to 15% of the world's population rather than 30% with the Mongols.

Standing armies are freakishly expensive. So either you raise and train it for some purpose. Have it as mostly second occupation. Have some specialist paid by area.

Or just hire some group offering services, allowing your own people to focus on farming or whatever profitable.

The ratio of farmers(including their families) to everyone else is immense through most of history. And most of time soldiers don't produce anything.

Nothing about the celts and the gallic/gaul mercenaries who fight with many tribes?

It’s refreshing to see an ancient DNA study that actually incorporates archeological context into its interpretations. I’ve been seeing a growing increase in ancient DNA papers that make far reaching conclusions while ignoring archeological context.

If USA can grant permanent residency in exchange for military service, the whole world will flock to the states. Isn't it an instance of mercenerism?

> If USA can grant permanent residency in exchange for military service, the whole world will flock to the states.

I’m not so sure about that.

It’s certainly an exaggeration, but there are a billion or so military age people in the world, and millions of people waiting in the U.S. visa backlog. I would not be surprised if such a program was very popular.

You could get enough people to staff all enlisted roles just from the Philippines, no problem. It would be a terrible idea for the US’s long run political stability but most of the world is poor and the US is the richest country in the history of the world. That’s without even talking about how outside war time and even in wartime if it’s an insurgent operation the US military is not that dangerous for anyone who isn’t infantry. And you can get a pension after 20 years. Many first world citizens would take that deal, never mind the wretched of the Earth.

Is it a real pension where my money is invested and returned to me in 20 years or is it like pensions in Europe, where you pay taxes that pay out current pensions and then you hope the government will give you X money in 20 years (which will inevitably become 30 years and X/2 by the time of your pension age)?

> If USA can grant permanent residency in exchange for military service, the whole world will flock to the states. Isn't it an instance of mercenerism?

We already do, at least during war time. I served with someone who enlisted directly from Mexico and was getting citizenship in return. Other militaries do it with us too, for instance the French Foreign Legion and Australian military recruit heavily out of the US.

The tech varies; people are constant.

When we get a time machine and peek in on these ancient struggles, I anticipate very unromantic and unsurprising results.

Shakespeare’s been dead 600 years, and we still make movies based on his archetypes.

His archetypes aren't original with him, either.

Try 400

My first reaction to seeing a random few minutes of Outlander was “ugh those people must have smelled awful!”

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

The more things change… The more they stay the same

Reply on news.ycombinator.com