5 ms·

This is very similar to the situation that caused the Swiss to become the mercenaries of Europe. If you were the second son, you weren't going to inherit the fa

This is very similar to the situation that caused the Swiss to become the mercenaries of Europe. If you were the second son, you weren't going to inherit the farm and thus in a resource-poor country like Switzerland of the Middle Ages, your best choice was to go abroad and find some feudal lord putting together an army. Thus you became a "freelance" and hopefully found riches. I've always thought Machiavelli's dislike of mercenaries was poorly placed, as after all they were simply following the economic incentives.

blawson 9y ago
Primogeniture was pretty common in the middle ages in Europe. I've read arguments that it's a big reason why the Normans basically went out conquering England, the Mediterranean, etc.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  Primogeniture doesn't really set in until the High Middle Ages, and even then, there was still a fair amount of splitting inheritance up among sons (that's why the Holy Roman Empire consisted of so many small states: some of the duchies were given to splitting up to give to second and third sons). The Norse themselves still tended to follow partitioning laws, at least until the Scandinavian kingdoms started to coalesce. The repeated invasions of England between Ethelred the Unready and the final conquest of William the Bastard were not driven by second sons needing kingdoms for themselves, it was driven by England having the best tax base in the North Sea but high political stability, as well as the dying out of family lines. Key point about the latter: when Edward the Confessor died without issue, the claims to the English throne were: * Edward's brother-in-law and most powerful vassal, Harold Godwinson (son of the person who put Edward on the throne in the first place) * William, the bastard son of Edward's maternal cousin. Bolstered by "when he was staying over when he was young, he totally promised me the throne when he died." * Harald Hardrada, whose claim is "Cnut was King of England. He died, so his claim passed to Harthacnut. Harthacnut and Magnus made an agreement that, should one die without issue, the other would inherit his lands. Harthacnut died without issue, so Magnus should have been King of England. Magnus died without issue, so his claim winds its way back to me, his father's half-brother by way of mother."
3pt14159 9y ago
Eh. They could become merchants or craftspersons too. The options weren't starve to death or kill for money.
- DamnYuppie 9y ago
  Different times, social customs and norms. Generally they would have been trained in combat and warfare and not as merchants or craftsmen, which at the time were considered lower in the class hierarchy then the 2nd son of a lord or knight. In essence him being a crafts-person or merchant would have been looked down on by everyone.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  It would have been unthinkable, in a lot of history, for a nobleman to become a merchant or a craftsman. Not just "people think you're weird," but like your family and friends would disown you and your potential customers would all think you're insane and you'd have no way to learn the job anyway because no commoner would dare take you as an apprentice. The modern Western world has no analog for how deep the noble/commoner divide was. Third sons wouldn't starve to death in any case, but they would rattle around the family lands making a nuisance of themselves and borrowing money from Dad. Noble families got some income from their tenants' taxes, generally, but it wasn't always enough to maintain yourself in high style. In some times/places, noblemen could get involved in trade, but that would mean funding other people's endeavors, not becoming merchants themselves. And sometimes even that was restricted or frowned upon.
  - selimthegrim 9y ago
    This sort of sounds like Brahmins in the 19th century?
chiph 9y ago
This is supposedly one of the ways the crescent got on the South Carolina state flag. Under French heraldry, it indicates a third son (when they bothered to use cadency on their coats of arms). Since his chances of inheriting the family lands & fortune were low, many of them set out for Charleston to seek their fortune, following the southern branch of the Huguenots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_South_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_South_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#North_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#North_America
- selimthegrim 9y ago
  Does this have anything to do with New Orleans as well?
  - jccooper 9y ago
    You mean "The Crescent City"? That's to do with the shape of the river.
walshemj 9y ago
I think Machiavelli's was worried that the mercs would take over. Which is effectively happened in India princes and kings hiring foreign mercs from France and Britain. Another example is the Janissaries in turkey.
- azernik 9y ago
  Machiavelli wasn't just "worried"; he'd seen it be attempted (sometimes successfully). Facino Cane, Vitellozzo Vitelli, and famously Francesco Sforza. (Often this would happen on the death of the previous hereditary ruler, or through taking independent control of territories conquered in an employer's name.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facino_Cane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facino_Cane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitellozzo_Vitelli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitellozzo_Vitelli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_I_Sforza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_I_Sforza
- dragandj 9y ago
  Janissaries were slave-warriors rather than mercenaries, though.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    true though they did later on wield massive power
  - gkya 9y ago
    Slave-warriors in the name only though. They were literally one of the most powerful classes in the entirety of the empire for many centuries, after the dynasty and the dirigents themselves.
    - dragandj 9y ago
      Sure, but they were not mercenaries. They did not enroll, but were taken from their families in occupied lands as small children, raised and educated as warriors, and the only career option they had, and family they knew of is the army.
has2k1 9y ago
> Machiavelli's dislike of mercenaries was poorly placed, as after all they were simply following the economic incentives. That is part of the reason he did not like them, their loyalty was bought and the "prince" who used them did not have any other leverage. It is difficult to win and then govern with mercenaries as the protectors of the kingdom. A long standing mercenary army does not convey legitimacy, and when disbanded there are issues of proper resettlement and worry about a rival acquiring their service.

blawson 9y ago

Primogeniture was pretty common in the middle ages in Europe. I've read arguments that it's a big reason why the Normans basically went out conquering England, the Mediterranean, etc.

jcranmer 9y ago
Primogeniture doesn't really set in until the High Middle Ages, and even then, there was still a fair amount of splitting inheritance up among sons (that's why the Holy Roman Empire consisted of so many small states: some of the duchies were given to splitting up to give to second and third sons). The Norse themselves still tended to follow partitioning laws, at least until the Scandinavian kingdoms started to coalesce. The repeated invasions of England between Ethelred the Unready and the final conquest of William the Bastard were not driven by second sons needing kingdoms for themselves, it was driven by England having the best tax base in the North Sea but high political stability, as well as the dying out of family lines. Key point about the latter: when Edward the Confessor died without issue, the claims to the English throne were: * Edward's brother-in-law and most powerful vassal, Harold Godwinson (son of the person who put Edward on the throne in the first place) * William, the bastard son of Edward's maternal cousin. Bolstered by "when he was staying over when he was young, he totally promised me the throne when he died." * Harald Hardrada, whose claim is "Cnut was King of England. He died, so his claim passed to Harthacnut. Harthacnut and Magnus made an agreement that, should one die without issue, the other would inherit his lands. Harthacnut died without issue, so Magnus should have been King of England. Magnus died without issue, so his claim winds its way back to me, his father's half-brother by way of mother."

3pt14159 9y ago

Eh. They could become merchants or craftspersons too. The options weren't starve to death or kill for money.

DamnYuppie 9y ago
Different times, social customs and norms. Generally they would have been trained in combat and warfare and not as merchants or craftsmen, which at the time were considered lower in the class hierarchy then the 2nd son of a lord or knight. In essence him being a crafts-person or merchant would have been looked down on by everyone.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
It would have been unthinkable, in a lot of history, for a nobleman to become a merchant or a craftsman. Not just "people think you're weird," but like your family and friends would disown you and your potential customers would all think you're insane and you'd have no way to learn the job anyway because no commoner would dare take you as an apprentice. The modern Western world has no analog for how deep the noble/commoner divide was. Third sons wouldn't starve to death in any case, but they would rattle around the family lands making a nuisance of themselves and borrowing money from Dad. Noble families got some income from their tenants' taxes, generally, but it wasn't always enough to maintain yourself in high style. In some times/places, noblemen could get involved in trade, but that would mean funding other people's endeavors, not becoming merchants themselves. And sometimes even that was restricted or frowned upon.
- selimthegrim 9y ago
  This sort of sounds like Brahmins in the 19th century?

chiph 9y ago

This is supposedly one of the ways the crescent got on the South Carolina state flag. Under French heraldry, it indicates a third son (when they bothered to use cadency on their coats of arms). Since his chances of inheriting the family lands & fortune were low, many of them set out for Charleston to seek their fortune, following the southern branch of the Huguenots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_South_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_South_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#North_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#North_America

selimthegrim 9y ago
Does this have anything to do with New Orleans as well?
- jccooper 9y ago
  You mean "The Crescent City"? That's to do with the shape of the river.

walshemj 9y ago

I think Machiavelli's was worried that the mercs would take over. Which is effectively happened in India princes and kings hiring foreign mercs from France and Britain. Another example is the Janissaries in turkey.

azernik 9y ago
Machiavelli wasn't just "worried"; he'd seen it be attempted (sometimes successfully). Facino Cane, Vitellozzo Vitelli, and famously Francesco Sforza. (Often this would happen on the death of the previous hereditary ruler, or through taking independent control of territories conquered in an employer's name.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facino_Cane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facino_Cane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitellozzo_Vitelli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitellozzo_Vitelli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_I_Sforza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_I_Sforza
dragandj 9y ago
Janissaries were slave-warriors rather than mercenaries, though.
- walshemj 9y ago
  true though they did later on wield massive power
- gkya 9y ago
  Slave-warriors in the name only though. They were literally one of the most powerful classes in the entirety of the empire for many centuries, after the dynasty and the dirigents themselves.
  - dragandj 9y ago
    Sure, but they were not mercenaries. They did not enroll, but were taken from their families in occupied lands as small children, raised and educated as warriors, and the only career option they had, and family they knew of is the army.

has2k1 9y ago

> Machiavelli's dislike of mercenaries was poorly placed, as after all they were simply following the economic incentives. That is part of the reason he did not like them, their loyalty was bought and the "prince" who used them did not have any other leverage. It is difficult to win and then govern with mercenaries as the protectors of the kingdom. A long standing mercenary army does not convey legitimacy, and when disbanded there are issues of proper resettlement and worry about a rival acquiring their service.